You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
I have neither the time nor desire to debate the merits of climate change with you, or anyone. The scientific community overwhelming (****overwhelmingly****) agrees that man has had an impact on the change of climate within the world. The precise degree is debated, but generally ranges from "A huge impact" to "a slightly less huge, but still enormous impact".
I do think my generation will attempt to solve Climate Change. No idea if we'll succeed. We have a huge appetite to do so, and it's only going to get stronger and stronger as the realities of Climate Change begin to affect more citizens.
Also. It's pretty condescending to call people who have a strong belief in the scientific community "Young and Idealistic".
We arent so young anymore (sorry) - and we have our priorities. Personally, I think it bugs the hell out of our parents and grandparents that the word "socialism" isnt a 4 letter word for our generation, and the reality that we've got to fix an existential threat that is partially of their making.
I'm a Millennial and I don't think our income or standard of living is really going to go up. Not like it has for other generations, at least.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
The trouble is that future generations won't be able to retire at a desirable age. My mom & dad retired at age 56 & 54 on a (gasp) teacher's salary. Say what you want about teachers getting screwed, but at least in Michigan, they made out like bandits. I won't even be able to think about retirement until I'm age 60. The next generation is going to be even worse off because they won't have any pension to speak of. Pensions and social security turned out to be a way to rob future generations in order to secure the votes of the current generation. If you doubt me, just try to explain to your parents or grandparents how their pension promises were unsustainable. They either won't comprehend it or will dismiss you out of hand. Enjoy paying for their retirements when you're working till you're 70 or later...
I'm a Millennial and I don't think our income or standard of living is really going to go up. Not like it has for other generations, at least.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
The trouble is that future generations won't be able to retire at a desirable age. My mom & dad retired at age 56 & 54 on a (gasp) teacher's salary. Say what you want about teachers getting screwed, but at least in Michigan, they made out like bandits. I won't even be able to think about retirement until I'm age 60. The next generation is going to be even worse off because they won't have any pension to speak of. Pensions and social security turned out to be a way to rob future generations in order to secure the votes of the current generation. If you doubt me, just try to explain to your parents or grandparents how their pension promises were unsustainable. They either won't comprehend it or will dismiss you out of hand. Enjoy paying for their retirements when you're working till you're 70 or later...
Edit: They'll make up for it if course, by blaming the 'other side' for your plight. Very convenient when things are so 50/50 that neither side ever has to take the blame but instead can blame the 'other'.
I'm a Millennial and I don't think our income or standard of living is really going to go up. Not like it has for other generations, at least.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
The trouble is that future generations won't be able to retire at a desirable age. My mom & dad retired at age 56 & 54 on a (gasp) teacher's salary. Say what you want about teachers getting screwed, but at least in Michigan, they made out like bandits. I won't even be able to think about retirement until I'm age 60. The next generation is going to be even worse off because they won't have any pension to speak of. Pensions and social security turned out to be a way to rob future generations in order to secure the votes of the current generation. If you doubt me, just try to explain to your parents or grandparents how their pension promises were unsustainable. They either won't comprehend it or will dismiss you out of hand. Enjoy paying for their retirements when you're working till you're 70 or later...
Edit: They'll make up for it if course, by blaming the 'other side' for your plight. Very convenient when things are so 50/50 that neither side ever has to take the blame but instead can blame the 'other'.
I wasn't trying to demean you in any way. I just try to make people think. I hope I didn't piss you off (but if I did and made you post in anger I don't mind that either really - I like getting dialogue going). If you're fine with the potential costs of environmental policy then that's your decision and your money to vote with and I won't try to dissuade you. I'm just afraid that many people have no idea what it will cost them in the long run.
I'm a Millennial and I don't think our income or standard of living is really going to go up. Not like it has for other generations, at least.
It's been many years since the recession and unemployment among my generation is still high. Those of us who are employed tend to work multiple jobs for low pay despite having higher educations, and since older folks are retiring later (which they're free to do, though it's not so good for my generation), the better jobs aren't opening up to young people like they otherwise might. It's not clear that the future is going to have all that many jobs in general, either.
And I haven't seen the free market working too hard to solve that problem.
The trouble is that future generations won't be able to retire at a desirable age. My mom & dad retired at age 56 & 54 on a (gasp) teacher's salary. Say what you want about teachers getting screwed, but at least in Michigan, they made out like bandits. I won't even be able to think about retirement until I'm age 60. The next generation is going to be even worse off because they won't have any pension to speak of. Pensions and social security turned out to be a way to rob future generations in order to secure the votes of the current generation. If you doubt me, just try to explain to your parents or grandparents how their pension promises were unsustainable. They either won't comprehend it or will dismiss you out of hand. Enjoy paying for their retirements when you're working till you're 70 or later...
Edit: They'll make up for it if course, by blaming the 'other side' for your plight. Very convenient when things are so 50/50 that neither side ever has to take the blame but instead can blame the 'other'.
I wasn't trying to demean you in any way. I just try to make people think. I hope I didn't piss you off (but if I did and made you post in anger I don't mind that either really - I like getting dialogue going). If you're fine with the potential costs of environmental policy then that's your decision and your money to vote with and I won't try to dissuade you. I'm just afraid that many people have no idea what it will cost them in the long run.
Edit: As a scientist, I've been wrong before and there's definitely no guarantee I'm not wrong about this. Stakes are extremely high about this issue and my scepticism could very well be catastrophic. I just want all of the cards on the table...
Seriously, between the two of us we could hash together a healthcare plan in about 3-5 posts that would piss both of us off but would be better than we have now. Do you really think that our government isn't capable of doing the same without some kind of total mandate that will never happen?
Considering that its always the same party that tries to take healthcare away, and one party that tries to make it available for everyone, its more one party making it impossible, rather than a nebulous "the government." Every other government of developed countries has been able to figure it out.
Your side is less than honest about the cost though. Just sayin...
Edit: Great way to get votes though. "It won't cost you anything because the filthy rich will pay for it". Even though they won't...
As has been said many times, the US health system costs far more than any other country in the world, despite not having the universal coverage that virtually every other developed country has. I really don't understand this argument that change has to cost more ...
As for your company, it wouldn't really be an example of 'small government' to legislate that companies have to pass on savings from health insurance. I can't think of any examples of legislation that force companies to pay such specific salaries (there's the minimum wage, but that's not comparable). In order to enforce your desire you would actually have to control the exact payment of the whole salary, which does not seem realistic to me.
I posted not long ago on a group of super-rich people arguing that they should pay more tax. The reality is that the wealthier you are in the US, the lower the impact of tax is on you (even before you get into the issues that rich people can afford to both employ advisers to reduce their tax bills and lobby law-makers to make favorable changes to the tax code). I agree that very high tax rates are counter-productive (for instance through stifling innovation and causing a 'brain-drain'), but tax distortions can create other problems. In the situation where an ever-increasing share of national wealth is held by a tiny percentage of the population it seems reasonable to me to change the tax structure. The aim of that wouldn't necessarily be to generate more tax overall, though that would certainly be a possible result.
They're already paying it. Why should they get the break when it's me personally who will get screwed? That doesn't seem like the Democratic party who's supposed to be for the little guy to me...
Edit: In other words, what's the difference between the 'tax cut for the rich' that Trump got through (and the left ripped him about) and this cut in healthcare benefits that benefits corporations?
Why assume you will get screwed? You're currently in a market place and companies are paying you a market rate. If there are underlying changes in the market place the market rate will shift - if one company tries to take all the benefits from no longer paying health insurance, others can get a competitive advantage by increasing their salaries and attracting the best staff to work for them. You may of course not believe in the market economy, but I haven't previously had that impression.
I've worked for my company for 30 years. Color me sceptical that they'll have my best interest in mind when they can instead save a buck. Get it in writing and you'll have my vote.
That's not the point. Your company won't pay you more because they have your best interests in mind, but because if they don't they might lose a valuable employee - enlightened self interest by all actors is the basis of the market economy. If you think that's untrue, then why does your company not just reduce your salary by 20% tomorrow to save money?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...
I agree that desire to protect stocks is a potential motivation, but that's longer term thinking than motivates most company (or political) decisions. I think you can see that domination of short-term concentration on profits in many ways - for instance the efforts by industry to put off the introduction of electric vehicles over the past couple of decades, rather than rushing them in to save oil for more valuable purposes.
A much more important motivation I think is that most people are concerned about sustainability to at least some extent - companies that ignore that are likely to see an impact on their bottom line.
As for the cost, I've said a number of times that there are easy wins that are being ignored. Trump's promotion of coal for instance has no advantages to anyone (except coal producers and the politicians they give money to). Using coal as a fuel is expensive, polluting, bad for the environment and uses up a finite resource. It's not yet as obvious that's the case with fossil-fuelled transport, but the same economic factors apply there as well. Electric vehicles are already cheaper to individuals in the medium to long run (see here for a report on a study showing the higher initial cost of EV is more than recovered over a 4 year period) and there's still far more potential for improvements and reductions in cost for EVs than fossil-fueled transport.
I would agree that there are other things that need to be done to mitigate climate change that will either cost more money or reduce individual freedoms. However, the costs of climate change will dwarf those if nothing is done - is that not something to be concerned about?
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...
I agree that desire to protect stocks is a potential motivation, but that's longer term thinking than motivates most company (or political) decisions. I think you can see that domination of short-term concentration on profits in many ways - for instance the efforts by industry to put off the introduction of electric vehicles over the past couple of decades, rather than rushing them in to save oil for more valuable purposes.
A much more important motivation I think is that most people are concerned about sustainability to at least some extent - companies that ignore that are likely to see an impact on their bottom line.
As for the cost, I've said a number of times that there are easy wins that are being ignored. Trump's promotion of coal for instance has no advantages to anyone (except coal producers and the politicians they give money to). Using coal as a fuel is expensive, polluting, bad for the environment and uses up a finite resource. It's not yet as obvious that's the case with fossil-fuelled transport, but the same economic factors apply there as well. Electric vehicles are already cheaper to individuals in the medium to long run (see here for a report on a study showing the higher initial cost of EV is more than recovered over a 4 year period) and there's still far more potential for improvements and reductions in cost for EVs than fossil-fueled transport.
I would agree that there are other things that need to be done to mitigate climate change that will either cost more money or reduce individual freedoms. However, the costs of climate change will dwarf those if nothing is done - is that not something to be concerned about?
My concern is that only the elite will be able to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels in the not very distant future. The cost of combatting climate change will equal nobody in the bottom 99.9% being able to access the same freedom of travel that I enjoy today. Liberals don't seem to be able to see that the very people they try desperately to represent will be the ones most negatively influenced by their policies. I don't get the disconnect...
No posts about how the Epstein story is 100% anti-Trump on CNN and 100% anti-Bill Clinton on Fox and conservative radio? I pay attention to both so the dichotomy is unbelievable...
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
I agree with you to a point. I really just don't trust our government or their corporate influences to make an unbiased decision. I work in the periphery of government OSHA and EPA methods so I have some insight into their methodology and decision-making. Hint - it's not always logic that dictates policy
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
You trust government data more than I do. I won't say that you're wrong because I don't have access to the raw data, but I'll just say that I am sceptical of any data that I don't analyze myself.
Just like the Green New Deal will cost the middle class disproportionately to the rich. I'll be asked to willingly pay for that too. I know, I'm a total asshole for saying it out loud but you know it's true.
I think you'll find this is a generational issue. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to be willing to pay for enormous structural changes(like the Green New Deal). Millennials currently are - I think in part because we understand that we will be living longer with the havoc of Climate Change than the other two. I also think we see the issue with a greater sense of urgency in general.
At the moment, Boomers have an outsized voice in terms of both voter participation and congress in general. That wont always be the case. By moving the Overton window now, Millenlians will hopefully make combating Climate Change a reasonable proposition as soon as possible (Considering we're on a ticking clock, is just about our only option).
You're of course assuming that man-made climate change is a proven fact which it really isn't. Mitigation is more reasonable than prevention without factual data (which admittedly is nigh impossible to prove scientifically due to multiple variables). I'm willing to discuss mitigation measures and gathering data for proving man-made theories (ie: gauging the effects of switching to alternative energy sources). The problem is the time-frame involved in gathering reliable data could be problematic. Would your generation be willing to sacrifice standard of living with no concrete basis of justifying it? When you're young and idealistic the answer may be 'yes' but that may change as time goes by and your income level and standard of living goes up. I was your age and idealistic at one time don't forget..
Edit: What happens if things don't change with the austerity measures in a reasonable time-frame? Do we then shit-can the measures because you don't see a short-term effect? Keep in mind that there may be no way to determine if there is a positive outcome in your lifetime. We're quite possibly talking multiple generations before we know whether or not your sacrifices make a difference...
You obliquely refer to the fact that in science very few things are 'proven facts'. However, there are theories that are widely accepted - like gravity for instance. There is not universal acceptance of what gravity is, but there is universal acceptance that there are physical effects we can measure, for which the 'theory of gravity' is a useful explanation.
The physical reality of gravity is no more real than the physical reality of climate change. The earth is getting warmer and there are dramatic effects being seen as a result (such as melting of ice-caps and glaciers). Where there is still a marginal bit of scientific debate is the extent to which that physical reality is man-made. At least in scientific circles that is only a marginal debate though. NASA have produce an accessible explanation of the cause of climate change and why we know the sun is not responsible for global warming.
I agree that it's likely to be decades until it's obvious what impact measures we take have had. However, that's not a good reason for taking no action. As @semiticgod noted there is also a lot we can do where there's no need for austerity, as there's a clear win-win for society - such as switching to energy sources that not only reduce carbon, but also support more jobs, produce cheaper electricity and greatly reduce pollution. The problem at the moment is that while there's a clear win-win for wider society, that's at the expense of a loss for the fossil fuel industries (and those currently have an unreasonable level of influence over policy makers).
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...
I agree that desire to protect stocks is a potential motivation, but that's longer term thinking than motivates most company (or political) decisions. I think you can see that domination of short-term concentration on profits in many ways - for instance the efforts by industry to put off the introduction of electric vehicles over the past couple of decades, rather than rushing them in to save oil for more valuable purposes.
A much more important motivation I think is that most people are concerned about sustainability to at least some extent - companies that ignore that are likely to see an impact on their bottom line.
As for the cost, I've said a number of times that there are easy wins that are being ignored. Trump's promotion of coal for instance has no advantages to anyone (except coal producers and the politicians they give money to). Using coal as a fuel is expensive, polluting, bad for the environment and uses up a finite resource. It's not yet as obvious that's the case with fossil-fuelled transport, but the same economic factors apply there as well. Electric vehicles are already cheaper to individuals in the medium to long run (see here for a report on a study showing the higher initial cost of EV is more than recovered over a 4 year period) and there's still far more potential for improvements and reductions in cost for EVs than fossil-fueled transport.
I would agree that there are other things that need to be done to mitigate climate change that will either cost more money or reduce individual freedoms. However, the costs of climate change will dwarf those if nothing is done - is that not something to be concerned about?
My concern is that only the elite will be able to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels in the not very distant future. The cost of combatting climate change will equal nobody in the bottom 99.9% being able to access the same freedom of travel that I enjoy today. Liberals don't seem to be able to see that the very people they try desperately to represent will be the ones most negatively influenced by their policies. I don't get the disconnect...
You're talking about 2 different things, although I agree there's a link between them. Taking action on climate change is just sensible to avoid a danger. No-one is going to argue that you should allow a child to touch a hot stove on the grounds that they should have the liberty of choice. The same logic should be applied to climate change.
However, I agree that there are different alternatives available for tackling climate change and that some of those will impact more on poorer people. If you advocated a policy that air travel should be 1000% more expensive in order to reduce demand for that, then that would have a disparate impact for instance.
However, that's not the only way you can tackle climate change. You could for instance have a world-wide concentration on direct carbon capture and storage - that could potentially have an enormous effect, but it's also currently an expensive option and therefore politically difficult.
I've already referred to some of the things you can do to help that are not particularly politically difficult (unless you count giving up existing sources of donations). However, there are also a large group of policies that make sense (economic as well as in other ways) in the longer term, but have short term costs to introduce. This is an area where strong political leadership could make life better for everyone. I referred in an earlier post to EV cars, which are an example of this sort of effect, but I'm working on several projects with similar sorts of features at the moment. For instance the UK government is in the process of legislating to greatly reduce the amount of carbon used in housing. New public buildings must already be constructed to "near-zero" carbon standards and the same will apply in future to commercial and private buildings. One result of this is that new housing will not be able to connect to gas from 2025. It's already the case that heat pump technology is cheaper than gas over its lifetime, so in theory the regulatory change saves rather than costs money and developers should be willing to introduce that into new housing now. However, there's a disconnect there between who bears the initial costs (developer) and who gets the ongoing benefits (householder). In order to persuade housing developers to take action now, rather than wait for 2025, I'm trying to develop a scheme whereby the County Council loans funds to the developer for the cost of the heat pump. They would then give the householder a choice - pay for those initial costs up front or pay just the standard amount for the house initially, but have an ongoing service charge. If they chose the latter, the lower running costs for the heat pump compared to gas would allow them to still be better off - so everyone should be a winner.
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
You trust government data more than I do. I won't say that you're wrong because I don't have access to the raw data, but I'll just say that I am sceptical of any data that I don't analyze myself.
I don't know if I trust government data more - but most of the climate change data used is not produced by government anyway. It's a stretch to even consider the IPCC a government body (it was set up under the auspices of the United Nations, but the scientists doing the work are volunteers). The IPCC itself though is essentially just collating the work produced by others and the majority of that work is not done by government - for instance in the UK universities do the bulk of the research (and while some of that is funded by government, most is not).
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
The patents were mysteriously expiring on the Dow Chemical 'ozone depleters' just as the 'miraculous' replacements were found by, wait for it, Dow Chemical! Incredible coincidence right? Dow's shareholders miraculously made a profit! Wow, what a coincidence...
Oh, just as a chemist fyi, they're now using pentane instead of freon to blow polyisocyanate foams. It won't 'supposedly' affect the ozone layer but now it can explode and kill everybody within a 25 meter radius...
Oh, just as a chemist fyi, they're now using pentane instead of freon to blow polyisocyanate foams. It won't 'supposedly' affect the ozone layer but now it can explode and kill everybody within a 25 meter radius...
Edit: if you doubt me just Google 'pentane blowing agent' and check out the safety regulations...
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
Both sides use emotional biases not based on fact. I actually err on the scientific side due to the obvious b.s. to try to bend science to religion. Having said that, science is also reluctant to admit to any gray areas on their end. A perfect example is why white skin would be anyways preferential due to climate. I'm sorry, but with thousands of years of data to look at, white skin should be more recessive than it is statistically, regardless of latitude, if skin cancer is a major cause of morbidity. Little things like this add up when you're looking at multiple generations into the past.
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
The patents were mysteriously expiring on the Dow Chemical 'ozone depleters' just as the 'miraculous' replacements were found by, wait for it, Dow Chemical! Incredible coincidence right? Dow's shareholders miraculously made a profit! Wow, what a coincidence...
To be honest this just sounds like conspiracy theorists at work:
- the potential effects of the ozone layer were being looked at early in the twentieth century.
- the first research demonstrating the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer was published in the early 1970s (see here for instance).
- the Montreal Protocol agreeing to phase out CFCs was signed in 1987.
- Dow announced in 1992 that they would discontinue CFCs by the end of 1995 (following a Presidential statement suggesting that as a deadline).
I see nothing to suggest that Dow had the slightest influence on the Montreal Protocol. It's conceivable that they had some influence on US policy on how quickly and with what to replace CFCs. However, it looks more like to me that they saw change was required and changed - companies do that all the time ...
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
The patents were mysteriously expiring on the Dow Chemical 'ozone depleters' just as the 'miraculous' replacements were found by, wait for it, Dow Chemical! Incredible coincidence right? Dow's shareholders miraculously made a profit! Wow, what a coincidence...
To be honest this just sounds like conspiracy theorists at work:
- the potential effects of the ozone layer were being looked at early in the twentieth century.
- the first research demonstrating the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer was published in the early 1970s (see here for instance).
- the Montreal Protocol agreeing to phase out CFCs was signed in 1987.
- Dow announced in 1992 that they would discontinue CFCs by the end of 1995 (following a Presidential statement suggesting that as a deadline).
I see nothing to suggest that Dow had the slightest influence on the Montreal Protocol. It's conceivable that they had some influence on US policy on how quickly and with what to replace CFCs. However, it looks more like to me that they saw change was required and changed - companies do that all the time ...
Deep dive a few years back. It's not hidden super well. It might be a 'conspiracy theory', but make your own judgments.
I'm not suggesting that Dow is evil per se, but just like the company I work for, at the end if the day they'd like me to make money. My 401k cash is mostly in the Dow since I'm not within 5 years of retirement... No shenanigans that I know of so far by my company...
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
Both sides use emotional biases not based on fact. I actually err on the scientific side due to the obvious b.s. to try to bend science to religion. Having said that, science is also reluctant to admit to any gray areas on their end. A perfect example is why white skin would be anyways preferential due to climate. I'm sorry, but with thousands of years of data to look at, white skin should be more recessive than it is statistically, regardless of latitude, if skin cancer is a major cause of morbidity. Little things like this add up when you're looking at multiple generations into the past.
In my view the facts are clear - no need for any emotional biases.
- the earth is warming.
- greenhouse gases are increasing.
- man is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
- there is a proven mechanism showing how greenhouse gases trap solar radiation to increase warming of a body.
There are real-world complexities that can slow down or speed up the rate at which warming happens (for instance as a result of the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean) and our understanding of those complexities is still developing. However, that does not affect the underlying mechanism that if we keep increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will eventually lead to warming.
Don't feel you're being bullied into an answer, but I would like to understand why someone with a scientific
approach is so skeptical. Is there a particular one of the statements above you disagree with, or do you just feel that global warming is happening, but the impacts will be as much beneficial as harmful?
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
Both sides use emotional biases not based on fact. I actually err on the scientific side due to the obvious b.s. to try to bend science to religion. Having said that, science is also reluctant to admit to any gray areas on their end. A perfect example is why white skin would be anyways preferential due to climate. I'm sorry, but with thousands of years of data to look at, white skin should be more recessive than it is statistically, regardless of latitude, if skin cancer is a major cause of morbidity. Little things like this add up when you're looking at multiple generations into the past.
In my view the facts are clear - no need for any emotional biases.
- the earth is warming.
- greenhouse gases are increasing.
- man is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
- there is a proven mechanism showing how greenhouse gases trap solar radiation to increase warming of a body.
There are real-world complexities that can slow down or speed up the rate at which warming happens (for instance as a result of the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean) and our understanding of those complexities is still developing. However, that does not affect the underlying mechanism that if we keep increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will eventually lead to warming.
Don't feel you're being bullied into an answer, but I would like to understand why someone with a scientific
approach is so skeptical. Is there a particular one of the statements above you disagree with, or do you just feel that global warming is happening, but the impacts will be as much beneficial as harmful?
I don't trust Government conclusions to be unbiased. They should be, but they seldom are in my experience. If I personally disagree with their scientific premise, I have a very hard time agreeing with their conclusion(s).
I said I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really starting to think that the elite believe that the lower and middle classes are using up too much of 'theiir' resources. Don't believe me?
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
Oh I want it .
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
The patents were mysteriously expiring on the Dow Chemical 'ozone depleters' just as the 'miraculous' replacements were found by, wait for it, Dow Chemical! Incredible coincidence right? Dow's shareholders miraculously made a profit! Wow, what a coincidence...
To be honest this just sounds like conspiracy theorists at work:
- the potential effects of the ozone layer were being looked at early in the twentieth century.
- the first research demonstrating the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer was published in the early 1970s (see here for instance).
- the Montreal Protocol agreeing to phase out CFCs was signed in 1987.
- Dow announced in 1992 that they would discontinue CFCs by the end of 1995 (following a Presidential statement suggesting that as a deadline).
I see nothing to suggest that Dow had the slightest influence on the Montreal Protocol. It's conceivable that they had some influence on US policy on how quickly and with what to replace CFCs. However, it looks more like to me that they saw change was required and changed - companies do that all the time ...
Deep dive a few years back. It's not hidden super well. It might be a 'conspiracy theory', but make your own judgments.
I'm not suggesting that Dow is evil per se, but just like the company I work for, at the end if the day they'd like me to make money. My 401k cash is mostly in the Dow since I'm not within 5 years of retirement... No shenanigans that I know of so far by my company...
I've gone back years. For it to be a real effect, Dow would have had to have sponsored the research paper I referred to dating from 1974. As far as I can tell neither of the authors of that paper had anything to do with Dow and, in fact, Dow disputed their research when it was published. Unless you have some additional evidence to offer, my view is still this is just a conspiracy theory.
I'll throw the climate-change theory out there just like my family throws their Noah's Ark theory out there. There is no discrepancy between Noah's ark and evolution because the Bible mentions 'kinds' of animals instead of 'species'. Therefore there were dinosaurs on the ark, they were just smaller until they magically dispersed and bred. They went extinct after the Ark for 'reasons' that involve not being able to be dated by Carbon 14. Conversely, no government would ever lie about global warming, even a government that experimented on their own people with radiation, psychotropic drugs and venereal diseases (MKUltra). Our two-party system is dangerously outdated...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
Both sides use emotional biases not based on fact. I actually err on the scientific side due to the obvious b.s. to try to bend science to religion. Having said that, science is also reluctant to admit to any gray areas on their end. A perfect example is why white skin would be anyways preferential due to climate. I'm sorry, but with thousands of years of data to look at, white skin should be more recessive than it is statistically, regardless of latitude, if skin cancer is a major cause of morbidity. Little things like this add up when you're looking at multiple generations into the past.
In my view the facts are clear - no need for any emotional biases.
- the earth is warming.
- greenhouse gases are increasing.
- man is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
- there is a proven mechanism showing how greenhouse gases trap solar radiation to increase warming of a body.
There are real-world complexities that can slow down or speed up the rate at which warming happens (for instance as a result of the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean) and our understanding of those complexities is still developing. However, that does not affect the underlying mechanism that if we keep increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will eventually lead to warming.
Don't feel you're being bullied into an answer, but I would like to understand why someone with a scientific
approach is so skeptical. Is there a particular one of the statements above you disagree with, or do you just feel that global warming is happening, but the impacts will be as much beneficial as harmful?
I don't trust Government conclusions to be unbiased. They should be, but they seldom are in my experience. If I personally disagree with their scientific premise, I have a very hard time agreeing with their conclusion(s).
So whose conclusions would you trust? As I said before most research in this area is not by governments, so presumably you don't trust universities or scientific groups (like the Royal Society for instance). You've already noted that most industries (even fossil-fuel companies) seem to have accepted the reality of climate change, but I could forgive you for not trusting those .
The notion that climate change is real and needs to be counteracted is not a "government" viewpoint, considering our current government in the United States very much believes the exact opposite.
Taking steps to address climate change is generally an unpopular policy. It's not exactly in a politician's best interests to advocate it if it's going to cost them votes. If you were a politician and wanted to stay in power, the last thing you would do is call for a decrease in carbon emissions.
Comments
I have neither the time nor desire to debate the merits of climate change with you, or anyone. The scientific community overwhelming (****overwhelmingly****) agrees that man has had an impact on the change of climate within the world. The precise degree is debated, but generally ranges from "A huge impact" to "a slightly less huge, but still enormous impact".
I do think my generation will attempt to solve Climate Change. No idea if we'll succeed. We have a huge appetite to do so, and it's only going to get stronger and stronger as the realities of Climate Change begin to affect more citizens.
Also. It's pretty condescending to call people who have a strong belief in the scientific community "Young and Idealistic".
We arent so young anymore (sorry) - and we have our priorities. Personally, I think it bugs the hell out of our parents and grandparents that the word "socialism" isnt a 4 letter word for our generation, and the reality that we've got to fix an existential threat that is partially of their making.
The trouble is that future generations won't be able to retire at a desirable age. My mom & dad retired at age 56 & 54 on a (gasp) teacher's salary. Say what you want about teachers getting screwed, but at least in Michigan, they made out like bandits. I won't even be able to think about retirement until I'm age 60. The next generation is going to be even worse off because they won't have any pension to speak of. Pensions and social security turned out to be a way to rob future generations in order to secure the votes of the current generation. If you doubt me, just try to explain to your parents or grandparents how their pension promises were unsustainable. They either won't comprehend it or will dismiss you out of hand. Enjoy paying for their retirements when you're working till you're 70 or later...
Edit: They'll make up for it if course, by blaming the 'other side' for your plight. Very convenient when things are so 50/50 that neither side ever has to take the blame but instead can blame the 'other'.
I wasn't trying to demean you in any way. I just try to make people think. I hope I didn't piss you off (but if I did and made you post in anger I don't mind that either really - I like getting dialogue going). If you're fine with the potential costs of environmental policy then that's your decision and your money to vote with and I won't try to dissuade you. I'm just afraid that many people have no idea what it will cost them in the long run.
Edit: As a scientist, I've been wrong before and there's definitely no guarantee I'm not wrong about this. Stakes are extremely high about this issue and my scepticism could very well be catastrophic. I just want all of the cards on the table...
That's not the point. Your company won't pay you more because they have your best interests in mind, but because if they don't they might lose a valuable employee - enlightened self interest by all actors is the basis of the market economy. If you think that's untrue, then why does your company not just reduce your salary by 20% tomorrow to save money?
Balrog99 almost drunk climate science post.
1. Human influenced global warming is real
a. We can influence it - Reverse it - Saves
the planet, yay! Kudos to all. Money well.
spent...
b. - nothing we can do can reverse it.
Boo! Wasted money...
2. Global warming - no human influence.
one way or the other - Boo,wasted.
money for multiple generations
3 Global warming - statistical anomaly -
minimal spending due to transient nature
How much is 1a worth to you with very little historical data? Keep in mind that you'll never be able to fly to wherever you want like we can today unless you're rich. You'll likely be tethered to an electric car that needs to charge for 4-8 hrs if you need to travel more than 300 miles. Your energy costs will likely be astronomically higher than I ever had to pay and you'll likely never have a pension. Still look like a great option? If so then you're making an enlightened choice.
I agree that desire to protect stocks is a potential motivation, but that's longer term thinking than motivates most company (or political) decisions. I think you can see that domination of short-term concentration on profits in many ways - for instance the efforts by industry to put off the introduction of electric vehicles over the past couple of decades, rather than rushing them in to save oil for more valuable purposes.
A much more important motivation I think is that most people are concerned about sustainability to at least some extent - companies that ignore that are likely to see an impact on their bottom line.
As for the cost, I've said a number of times that there are easy wins that are being ignored. Trump's promotion of coal for instance has no advantages to anyone (except coal producers and the politicians they give money to). Using coal as a fuel is expensive, polluting, bad for the environment and uses up a finite resource. It's not yet as obvious that's the case with fossil-fuelled transport, but the same economic factors apply there as well. Electric vehicles are already cheaper to individuals in the medium to long run (see here for a report on a study showing the higher initial cost of EV is more than recovered over a 4 year period) and there's still far more potential for improvements and reductions in cost for EVs than fossil-fueled transport.
I would agree that there are other things that need to be done to mitigate climate change that will either cost more money or reduce individual freedoms. However, the costs of climate change will dwarf those if nothing is done - is that not something to be concerned about?
My concern is that only the elite will be able to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels in the not very distant future. The cost of combatting climate change will equal nobody in the bottom 99.9% being able to access the same freedom of travel that I enjoy today. Liberals don't seem to be able to see that the very people they try desperately to represent will be the ones most negatively influenced by their policies. I don't get the disconnect...
Oh I want it
You might remember scientists warning some years ago about the impact of a different set of gases - CFCs on the ozone layer. That resulted in a big hole in the ozone layer, but that hole is now in the process of disappearing as a result of an international agreement in 1987 to greatly reduce the use of CFCs. Climate change could absolutely be reversed in the same way. The basic mechanisms have been understood for a long time - if we can reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that will reduce temperatures.
Your basic postulate of 1. 2. and 3. is misleading because those are not equally likely scenarios. To take an extreme example:
1. The earth is round, so we can sail ships around it.
2. The earth is flat, so there's no point sailing any ships as they would just fall off the edge.
If you ignore all the evidence the earth is round and don't seek to test the postulate then it makes sense not to try and sail any ships around the earth ...
As for little historical data, climate change is one of the most studied phenomena in science and we have a huge amount of data about it over a very long period (including things like ice core analysis to show the link between carbon dioxide and temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years).
The evidence for man-made climate change is extremely strong. Even if the evidence were weaker though, the downside of taking no action is so high that it would seem worthwhile to do something. I guess that you wouldn't want to play Russian roulette on the basis that there is 'only' a 1/6 chance of dying, so it seems odd to me to want to play far worse odds with climate change.
The hole in the ozone layer was never reported before we were able to detect a hole in the ozone layer. Therefore it's impossible to say whether or not it was always there. That's another bullshit thing we were fed. I heard it was because Dow's patents were expiring on the freons used in aerosol cans back in the 80's
I agree with you to a point. I really just don't trust our government or their corporate influences to make an unbiased decision. I work in the periphery of government OSHA and EPA methods so I have some insight into their methodology and decision-making. Hint - it's not always logic that dictates policy
You trust government data more than I do. I won't say that you're wrong because I don't have access to the raw data, but I'll just say that I am sceptical of any data that I don't analyze myself.
You're talking about 2 different things, although I agree there's a link between them. Taking action on climate change is just sensible to avoid a danger. No-one is going to argue that you should allow a child to touch a hot stove on the grounds that they should have the liberty of choice. The same logic should be applied to climate change.
However, I agree that there are different alternatives available for tackling climate change and that some of those will impact more on poorer people. If you advocated a policy that air travel should be 1000% more expensive in order to reduce demand for that, then that would have a disparate impact for instance.
However, that's not the only way you can tackle climate change. You could for instance have a world-wide concentration on direct carbon capture and storage - that could potentially have an enormous effect, but it's also currently an expensive option and therefore politically difficult.
I've already referred to some of the things you can do to help that are not particularly politically difficult (unless you count giving up existing sources of donations). However, there are also a large group of policies that make sense (economic as well as in other ways) in the longer term, but have short term costs to introduce. This is an area where strong political leadership could make life better for everyone. I referred in an earlier post to EV cars, which are an example of this sort of effect, but I'm working on several projects with similar sorts of features at the moment. For instance the UK government is in the process of legislating to greatly reduce the amount of carbon used in housing. New public buildings must already be constructed to "near-zero" carbon standards and the same will apply in future to commercial and private buildings. One result of this is that new housing will not be able to connect to gas from 2025. It's already the case that heat pump technology is cheaper than gas over its lifetime, so in theory the regulatory change saves rather than costs money and developers should be willing to introduce that into new housing now. However, there's a disconnect there between who bears the initial costs (developer) and who gets the ongoing benefits (householder). In order to persuade housing developers to take action now, rather than wait for 2025, I'm trying to develop a scheme whereby the County Council loans funds to the developer for the cost of the heat pump. They would then give the householder a choice - pay for those initial costs up front or pay just the standard amount for the house initially, but have an ongoing service charge. If they chose the latter, the lower running costs for the heat pump compared to gas would allow them to still be better off - so everyone should be a winner.
I agree data was not collected on the ozone layer for as long as we've been collecting data on climate change. However, it was data showing the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer was getting more extreme over time that led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Measurement techniques and the extent of data collection has improved since then and shows the thinning getting less extreme. Here's a brief history about ozone and CFCs.
Incidentally, just like it's possible to demonstrate the greenhouse effect experimentally in closed conditions, it was also possible to demonstrate experimentally that CFCs destroyed ozone. Where the basic science is not in dispute I'm always going to be skeptical of particular interest groups defending their position on the grounds that what has been demonstrated in the laboratory does not always translate exactly into real world effects.
I don't know if I trust government data more - but most of the climate change data used is not produced by government anyway. It's a stretch to even consider the IPCC a government body (it was set up under the auspices of the United Nations, but the scientists doing the work are volunteers). The IPCC itself though is essentially just collating the work produced by others and the majority of that work is not done by government - for instance in the UK universities do the bulk of the research (and while some of that is funded by government, most is not).
The patents were mysteriously expiring on the Dow Chemical 'ozone depleters' just as the 'miraculous' replacements were found by, wait for it, Dow Chemical! Incredible coincidence right? Dow's shareholders miraculously made a profit! Wow, what a coincidence...
Edit: if you doubt me just Google 'pentane blowing agent' and check out the safety regulations...
You're obviously skeptical of the Noah's Ark theory because it doesn't fit well with observed reality. Of course I agree with that, but I genuinely don't understand why you don't apply the same sorts of rationale to climate change. That theory takes a totally understood scientific method that can be demonstrated in the laboratory and predicts how that will translate into the much more complex real world.
Over time those climate change predictions have been refined and improved to take account of the many complexities (the IPCC itself was formed in 1988, which is not particularly recent - but studies on climate change predated that). That's a very similar process to the way in which weather forecasting has improved over time. Local forecasts from the BBC now give % chances of rain on an hourly basis. If I look at those and see there's a 95% chance of rain I would expect to get wet if I went out for a walk and would plan on that basis. I think the same planning process should be used in respect of climate change.
Given that you're unconvinced about the reality of climate change - what would it take to convince you? It's probably too many years since I was convinced to really put myself back into that skeptical frame of mind, so it would be helpful to understand why others still have doubts.
Both sides use emotional biases not based on fact. I actually err on the scientific side due to the obvious b.s. to try to bend science to religion. Having said that, science is also reluctant to admit to any gray areas on their end. A perfect example is why white skin would be anyways preferential due to climate. I'm sorry, but with thousands of years of data to look at, white skin should be more recessive than it is statistically, regardless of latitude, if skin cancer is a major cause of morbidity. Little things like this add up when you're looking at multiple generations into the past.
To be honest this just sounds like conspiracy theorists at work:
- the potential effects of the ozone layer were being looked at early in the twentieth century.
- the first research demonstrating the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer was published in the early 1970s (see here for instance).
- the Montreal Protocol agreeing to phase out CFCs was signed in 1987.
- Dow announced in 1992 that they would discontinue CFCs by the end of 1995 (following a Presidential statement suggesting that as a deadline).
I see nothing to suggest that Dow had the slightest influence on the Montreal Protocol. It's conceivable that they had some influence on US policy on how quickly and with what to replace CFCs. However, it looks more like to me that they saw change was required and changed - companies do that all the time ...
Deep dive a few years back. It's not hidden super well. It might be a 'conspiracy theory', but make your own judgments.
I'm not suggesting that Dow is evil per se, but just like the company I work for, at the end if the day they'd like me to make money. My 401k cash is mostly in the Dow since I'm not within 5 years of retirement... No shenanigans that I know of so far by my company...
In my view the facts are clear - no need for any emotional biases.
- the earth is warming.
- greenhouse gases are increasing.
- man is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
- there is a proven mechanism showing how greenhouse gases trap solar radiation to increase warming of a body.
There are real-world complexities that can slow down or speed up the rate at which warming happens (for instance as a result of the amount of CO2 absorbed by the ocean) and our understanding of those complexities is still developing. However, that does not affect the underlying mechanism that if we keep increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will eventually lead to warming.
Don't feel you're being bullied into an answer, but I would like to understand why someone with a scientific
approach is so skeptical. Is there a particular one of the statements above you disagree with, or do you just feel that global warming is happening, but the impacts will be as much beneficial as harmful?
I don't trust Government conclusions to be unbiased. They should be, but they seldom are in my experience. If I personally disagree with their scientific premise, I have a very hard time agreeing with their conclusion(s).
I've gone back years. For it to be a real effect, Dow would have had to have sponsored the research paper I referred to dating from 1974. As far as I can tell neither of the authors of that paper had anything to do with Dow and, in fact, Dow disputed their research when it was published. Unless you have some additional evidence to offer, my view is still this is just a conspiracy theory.
So whose conclusions would you trust? As I said before most research in this area is not by governments, so presumably you don't trust universities or scientific groups (like the Royal Society for instance). You've already noted that most industries (even fossil-fuel companies) seem to have accepted the reality of climate change, but I could forgive you for not trusting those
Taking steps to address climate change is generally an unpopular policy. It's not exactly in a politician's best interests to advocate it if it's going to cost them votes. If you were a politician and wanted to stay in power, the last thing you would do is call for a decrease in carbon emissions.