Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Dotini]

Well, the effects of global warming are going to cost the world $5 trillion a year. So, lose a few hundred billion by cutting emissions, or lose a few trillion by not doing so. Call me alarmist, but I'm 15, and I don't want my planet looking like Kamino when I'm 65 or something.
P.S. Google "Kamino" and you'll know what I'm on about.

Look, driftking18594, global warming isn't true because it can't be true. It would interfere with our freedoms and the way things ought to be in our orderly and logical universe. Even if it were true, it can't be fixed because it can't be paid for. We've blown all our money and yours too. Our credit is shot. Although this will be up to your generation to live with, don't even think about rebelling, as our police will be all over you like a cheap suit.

Best advice: Get back to drifting. Life should be all about enjoyment and entertainment, and no worries about what you can't fix.

 

[Bram Turismo]

global warming isn't true because it can't be true. It would interfere with our freedoms and the way things ought to be in our orderly and logical universe.

Must...not...press...reply button...

 

[homeforsummer]

Must...not...press...reply button...

Don't worry, I will instead...

Look, driftking18594, global warming isn't true because it can't be true. It would interfere with our freedoms and the way things ought to be in our orderly and logical universe. Even if it were true, it can't be fixed because it can't be paid for. We've blown all our money and yours too. Our credit is shot. Although this will be up to your generation to live with, don't even think about rebelling, as our police will be all over you like a cheap suit.

Best advice: Get back to drifting. Life should be all about enjoyment and entertainment, and no worries about what you can't fix.

That attitude is everything that is wrong with humankind. Apart from the fact that global warming is happening (we just don't know if it's the sole fault of humankind or not, yet), you also make no sense whatsoever stating that it interferes "with our freedoms and the way things ought to be in our orderly and logical universe". What does that even mean? You call the universe logical (which is wrong anyway, the universe is very much chaotic, even if it still follows the accepted laws of physics) yet if you think about it for a second human activity is very much illogical most of the time.

Then you make some sort of ridiculous prophecy that it's up to the younger generations to fix but it's not worth trying anyway, and another ridiculous statement that there's no money left with which to fix things anyway.

And though I agree that life should be enjoyed, it shouldn't be at the expense of the future of humankind. If you as an individual had the chance, say, to stop an event that would trigger a chain reaction of events leading to a nuclear holocaust say, but that event was long, long after you'd passed on, would you do something to stop it? Or would you say "sod it" and take the selfish path knowing that it wouldn't affect you directly.

I love pissing about in cars, or watching TV, or eating meat, or all these other pursuits that contribute to human energy useage as much as the next guy, but I hate the idea that people willfully excessively consume at the expense of something else, and certainly at the expense of future generations. At the very least, I'd raise the point that even the selfish can gain something from reducing their energy useage, which is more money in their pocket...

In fact, I'm struggling to find a single part of your post that makes anything even approaching sense.

 

[Touring Mars]

Admirable restraint Bram, perhaps I could use some...

Look, driftking18594, global warming isn't true because it can't be true. It would interfere with our freedoms and the way things ought to be in our orderly and logical universe. Even if it were true, it can't be fixed because it can't be paid for. We've blown all our money and yours too. Our credit is shot. Although this will be up to your generation to live with, don't even think about rebelling, as our police will be all over you like a cheap suit.

Best advice: Get back to drifting. Life should be all about enjoyment and entertainment, and no worries about what you can't fix.

Based on the best assessments that anyone has actually attempted, for example the Stern review of the economic impacts of addressing climate change, it is going to cost us alot of money - but as I have argued before, the costs of doing nothing could be significantly higher.

I disagree with almost every major point you've raised, though, Dotini - I don't understand how global warming "can't be true" - there is ample evidence in the literature that shows that abrupt climate change has happened many times before, and will undoubtedly happen again. The question is not just whether or not our activities have ushered in such a transition, but what we need to do about it whether we are partially responsible or not.

A pertinent issue is the question of where the money will come from in order to adapt to climate change and develop alternative energy supplies. The latter is an issue that simply has to be addressed, completely independently of any considerations regarding climate change. And the costs of adapting to climate change will not disappear simply because we don't want to pay them, or because we don't think it is up to us to pay them.

The biggest single obstacle, even in the face of ideological objections and political wrangling, is the attitude that these problems can't be addressed - the next biggest is the attitude that these problems don't even exist and therefore don't need to be addressed... but there are possible solutions, and they don't necessarily require us to abandon our freedoms or principles to achieve them. For example, if fusion power becomes a reality, then the issue of reducing our energy consumption would ultimately be solved... but it wouldn't happen over night, and it wouldn't be a magic bullet either. However, it would afford us the possibility of meeting our growing energy demands while also allowing us to reduce our GHG emissions - no behaviour changes or nasty carbon taxes required.

But there are major issues even beyond a mere consideration of the climate system itself... a major issue is our inability as a species to take collective action or even to make collective decisions. Another is the indifference of the free market to the state of the planet and the inherent inability of free market solutions to address the full range of issues presented by abrupt climate change. While I believe that the free market has a crucial role to play, and is (somewhat ironically) possibly the single best weapon we have, it remains to be seen whether the free market will rise to challenge or whether it will collapse under the burdens imposed on it by the physical reality of our situation.

edit: Well and truly tree'd by HFS there!

 

[Famine]

He's being sarcastic. Up to the part about it being paid for - then he's being ironic.

 

[Dotini]

Dear homeforsummer and Touring Mars, I'm afraid my post was merely an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor. It's Famine who's treed me.

 

[Touring Mars]

OK, ignore the part about disagreeing with you then - actually, the bit about our credit being shot is bang on!! Hopefully the rest of my post is still relevant though...

 

[Bram Turismo]

Oh

 

[Dotini]

Thanks to all for being such good sports. Please carry on....

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Bram Turismo]

Thanks to all for being such good sports. Please carry on....

Respectfully,
Dotini

I am really bad at spotting sarcasm, so should I respond with a "" or a ""?

 

[Dotini]

I was trying to be both entertaining and humorous. I thought the appropriate.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[homeforsummer]

Dear homeforsummer and Touring Mars, I'm afraid my post was merely an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor. It's Famine who's treed me.

Gotcha 👍

Handy hint: Sarcasm is very difficult to spot on teh internetz.

 

[Joel]

We need a sarcasm font of some sort. Comic Sans?

 

[Touring Mars]

That's a great idea

 

[niky]

Comic Sans is the root of all evil...

 

[Joel]

Oh, I hate it too, but this seems like one legit use for it. Papyrus, on the other hand, is a lost cause.

 

[niky]

No, no... Papyrus is much better...

It reminds me of the hunt! Which reminds me of trees! Which reminds me of Global Warming!

Thank science it's not on the GTPlanet font list...

 

[Dotini]

Some slight play of hazardous phrases about the fringe of the institutional fabric may be tolerated by the popular taste, as an element of spice, and as indicating a generous and unbiassed mind; but in such cases the conclusive test of scientific competency and leadership, in the popular apprehension, is a serene and magniloquent return to the orthodox commonplaces, after all such playful excursions.

-Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899

 

[homeforsummer]

"Fourteen days to seal history's judgement on this generation"

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

This caught my attention today. Mainly because it's just about the perfect article for my Masters dissertation, but also because it's incredibly rare for so many newspapers to choose to take exactly the same editorial stance on a particular subject.

I'm aware that the Guardian is a left-wing paper (and they despise cars so I'm not often inclined to give them much attention) and that there's a distinct lack of right-wing papers in their list, but it's an interesting story nonetheless and quite an impressive movement.

 

[Danoff]

but as I have argued before, the costs of doing nothing could be significantly higher.

Yes, you have argued this before - and I cringe every time. This is the same as saying that the costs of not worshiping our Lord Jesus Christ could be significantly higher than not doing so.

The costs of you taking out an insurance policy against getting hospitalized by a falling pancake could also be significantly higher than not doing so (after all, it's possible that you could be hospitalized in a freak breakfast accident). The question is an assessment of the likelihood of that scenario... and don't forget to include the probability of us cleaning up our act regardless of whether any action is taken.

 

[Touring Mars]

One key difference being, of course, is that the behaviour of the climate system is, to a large extent anyway, measurable and based on real evidence, and hence atleast it is possible in principle (and indeed necessary) to attempt to assess what the economic impacts of mitigation and adaptation to climate change might be. Cringe all you want, but atleast I'm trying to address a real issue pertinent to the debate, rather than dismissing it as if it isn't an issue that ought to be addressed.

Obviously, it is impossible to say with total certainty right now that the costs involved in mitigation/prevention will outweigh the costs required for adaptation (even though that was the assessment of the Stern Review) - but it would be quite wrong to assume that this won't be the case, or that it is known with any certainty that the cost of adaptation will be any lower. Mitigation and prevention are obviously pre-emptive actions, hence it is always going to carry an element of risk, and will probably never be based on absolute certainty. But it is my view that these options atleast need to be assessed and, as far as is possible, quantified in order to make a fair comparison. I'm disappointed that you dismiss my mention of this issue as cringe-worthy. I only hope a few others do not share your dismissive attitude.

 

[Danoff]

I think you misunderstand me.

Cringe all you want, but atleast I'm trying to address a real issue pertinent to the debate, rather than dismissing it as if it isn't an issue that ought to be addressed.

I'm not claiming that it's unworthy of investigation.

but it would be quite wrong to assume that this won't be the case, or that it is known with any certainty that the cost of adaptation will be any lower.

I'm not claiming that it won't be the case.

But it is my view that these options atleast need to be assessed and, as far as is possible, quantified in order to make a fair comparison.

I'm not claiming that it shouldn't be assessed.

I'm disappointed that you dismiss my mention of this issue as cringe-worthy. I only hope a few others do not share your dismissive attitude.

I'm not dismissing the issue or cringing at your mention of the costs.

What I am cringing at is the reasoning. This...

but as I have argued before, the costs of doing nothing could be significantly higher.

...is not an argument. It's a completely useless statement designed to evoke an emotive response rather than an intellectual response. It's the same argument used to scare people into joining Christianity. The fact that the possibility exists says nothing about what action we should take. The fact that I cannot prove that hell does not exist says nothing about whether I should believe in Jesus. The accuracy and demonstrability of the prediction is everything in this discussion. What the costs could be is not pertinent. What matters is what the costs are likely to be.

 

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps rather than "completely useless", you might have said "it goes without saying", but I agree that the distinction you make is an important one. I don't consider it completely useless simply because it serves to remind people that this possibility does actually exist, despite the efforts of many (nobody here, thankfully) to suggest otherwise. It should go without saying that the costs of inaction "could be" significantly higher than the costs of mitigation, but so "could" the reverse be true - so that wording does rob the statement of much of its value - but not all. Indeed, the question is about the likelihood of either outcome as opposed to either outcome merely being possible. The Stern review doesn't make the same mistake as I have, however, as it states that "The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs." and that the economic costs are likely to grow the longer we put off mitigation steps. That said, I don't think that the former claim can possibly be made with total certainty, and as such it should probably have been worded better (a bit like this sentence).

Of course, many of the potential outcomes of the expected warming - including those already occurring and those that are considered extremely likely to occur unless mitigation steps are taken - have ramifications above and beyond mere economic considerations, such as the loss of low-lying landmass to expected sea level changes, or issues arising from the mass displacement of people. In these regards, a mere assessment of the economics of climate change would be insufficient to determine whether or not action is justifiable or not. In reality, the costs of climate change will be a mixed bag of adaptation measures and mitigation measures, and whichever way we slice it, it is very likely going to cost (us) money.

 

[Dotini]

What matters is what the costs are likely to be.

Too true. The costs are likely to be so unaffordable as to be completely out of the question. As stated elsewhere, we humans have completely bungled our economy and financial situation. If there's no solution then there's no problem.

 

[Danoff]

Too true. The costs are likely to be so unaffordable as to be completely out of the question.

I don't think I agree with you. If the cost of inaction is certain death - then I think just about any cost today (within the confines of rights) is justified. We sit somewhere on the spectrum of zero cost and certain death (obviously). Depending on where we are in that spectrum some preventative costs are justifiable.

The problem is that we're still very much struggling with figuring out where we are. I don't believe it's justifiable to do something "just in case" when the likelihood of that case hasn't been carefully assessed - especially when that "something" is enormous.

I'm still solidly agnostic on the issue. I'm waiting to be wowed with evidence - not only that we should be worried, but that we can do something about it.

 

[Dotini]

Of course I have nothing other than anecdotal weather to base any direct, first person observations on, so I have to be agnostic, too, as to the issue of where we are. My guess is that it's some proportion of natural/human caused, maybe 80/20, IMHO.

If real, immediate and effective action were finally deemed to be necessary, it's clear. Long ago the genius inventor of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, had it figured that in this event, we seize all the world's gold, grind it into a fine powder, then launch it into the upper stratosphere. With the proper rocket science, it would form a protective golden sunshade around the entire globe, instantly dealing with insolation.

Here's science confirming the Toba event of 73,000 years ago. It almost-but-not-quite caused total human extinction: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34277023/ns/technology_and_science-science/

The Earth's temperature was lowered by 28 whole degrees. Yet humanity survived to flourish again. Anything that's happening today is small potatoes compared to that, short of a runaway greenhouse effect analogous to what's already happened on Venus.

 

[DK]

A fiver says Fox News would call the conference in Copenhagen a "liberal conspiracy" or a "Chinese conspiracy".

 

[homeforsummer]

Too true. The costs are likely to be so unaffordable as to be completely out of the question. As stated elsewhere, we humans have completely bungled our economy and financial situation. If there's no solution then there's no problem.

I disagree that the economy is in such a state that we are unable to to anything worthwhile. Apart from anything, much of the investment in environmental projects comes from private initiatives rather than government funding. Some of these companies may disappear of course, but others won't. We're not in a global financial meltdown, it's a recession, just like many other recessions that have come and gone before.

The Earth's temperature was lowered by 28 whole degrees. Yet humanity survived to flourish again. Anything that's happening today is small potatoes compared to that, short of a runaway greenhouse effect analogous to what's already happened on Venus.

Humankind is no longer in a position where it can just "accept" a massive percentage of the world population being wiped out. Firstly, because we're hugely more globally-aware than humans of 73k years ago and what affects someone on the other side of the world might well affect you, and along those lines, unlike tens of thousands of years ago we now also rely on people from other countries. Just think of the millions of products that are imported and exported all over the world. Infrastructure would crumble if we had an extinction event because technology and globalisation is so ingrained into our culture.

73,000 years ago, if you were one of the few survivors of an extinction event you pretty much lived to reproduce and made sure your own line was kept going. It didn't matter whether someone on the other side of the world was dead because you weren't even aware they existed in the first place. Nowadays, that person on the other side of the world might be the person who makes refrigerators. Where the hell are you going to keep your food without a fridge? Perhaps you'd be the only person left in your country after an extinction event... reckon you could fend for yourself and make it to somewhere else in the world to get the human population going again?

Yes, global warming isn't exactly an "extinction event", but it's consequences are still far-reaching. It's also something that we can measure, and pre-emptively do something about. When you have this ability as a race, it's foolish not to use it.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't use some pre-historical extinction event as a comparison with people dying as a result of potential future effects of global warming. As modern human beings, we are no longer prepared to let peoples' communities be wiped out by something that's preventable.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Yes, global warming isn't exactly an "extinction event", but it's consequences are still far-reaching. It's also something that we can measure, and pre-emptively do something about. When you have this ability as a race, it's foolish not to use it.

Well said, my man, well said 👍

 

[Dotini]

Agreed.👍