Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
As opposed to denying there's a problem. That's much better.
As opposed to denying there's a problem. That's much better.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
- Thread starter LynahFan
- Start date
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Better than creating costly solutions that don't actually solve anything.
As opposed to denying there's a problem. That's much better.
Better than creating costly solutions that don't actually solve anything.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Arguably it isn't better since it delegitimizes all solutions, not just the bad ones.
At the end of the day it's who are you going to believe: science without a vested interest or business with one. There's really no getting around that.
Arguably it isn't better since it delegitimizes all solutions, not just the bad ones.
At the end of the day it's who are you going to believe: science without a vested interest or business with one. There's really no getting around that.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
That said, there is no logical progression to be made from the extremely costly measures being proposed to actually solving global warming in a meaningful manner, if you really believe in global warming. So, even if you believe hook, line, and sinker, you're not proposing to actually fix the problem, just dance around the edges a little bit and feel good about yourself, realizing that an actual fix would be far too radical for even most people who fully believe global warming is a problem.
Science with no vested interest. Show me what planet you're talking about.
That said, there is no logical progression to be made from the extremely costly measures being proposed to actually solving global warming in a meaningful manner, if you really believe in global warming. So, even if you believe hook, line, and sinker, you're not proposing to actually fix the problem, just dance around the edges a little bit and feel good about yourself, realizing that an actual fix would be far too radical for even most people who fully believe global warming is a problem.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
I think that's absolutely true. A lot of the international measures that have been proposed over the last 15 years are more about creating symbolic political victories than about doing anything concrete about climate change.
And most of the people pushing those measures know it. The idea is that getting folks to buy into the concept of mitigation is a necessary first step toward reaching more effective policies later. How much later? Who knows. And who knows if that "start slowly and build from there" dynamic will actually work, anyway? Leaving us stuck with costly measures that don't actually do much of anything. It's one reason why I've always been extremely skeptical of top-down international measures.
But I don't think it's fundamentally a policy problem. And I don't think it's fundamentally a science problem.
Assume that both of those are solved. It's hard to imagine any policy that doesn't, at some level, boil down to short term sacrifice for long term benefit. Anyone familiar with this country's spending habits has all the reason they need to be skeptical that anything will be done. People of almost all political stripes have criticized governmental spending. But it's not just the government - it's also a lot of the people who are doing the complaining. My generation is guilty. My parents' is as well. Probably have to go back to my grandparents...
I imagine there will be widespread popular support for fundamental energy/environment reform at just about the time when the benefits of reform are simultaneous with the costs. GHW Bush's words at the 92 Earth Summit were meant as a rallying cry. But they're actually just a vanilla statement of fact. "The American way of life is not up for negotiation."
I think that's absolutely true. A lot of the international measures that have been proposed over the last 15 years are more about creating symbolic political victories than about doing anything concrete about climate change.
And most of the people pushing those measures know it. The idea is that getting folks to buy into the concept of mitigation is a necessary first step toward reaching more effective policies later. How much later? Who knows. And who knows if that "start slowly and build from there" dynamic will actually work, anyway? Leaving us stuck with costly measures that don't actually do much of anything. It's one reason why I've always been extremely skeptical of top-down international measures.
But I don't think it's fundamentally a policy problem. And I don't think it's fundamentally a science problem.
Assume that both of those are solved. It's hard to imagine any policy that doesn't, at some level, boil down to short term sacrifice for long term benefit. Anyone familiar with this country's spending habits has all the reason they need to be skeptical that anything will be done. People of almost all political stripes have criticized governmental spending. But it's not just the government - it's also a lot of the people who are doing the complaining. My generation is guilty. My parents' is as well. Probably have to go back to my grandparents...
I imagine there will be widespread popular support for fundamental energy/environment reform at just about the time when the benefits of reform are simultaneous with the costs. GHW Bush's words at the 92 Earth Summit were meant as a rallying cry. But they're actually just a vanilla statement of fact. "The American way of life is not up for negotiation."
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
You seem to be very committed to this "feel good about yourself" rhetoric. You could as easily argue that the psychological motivation for the Deniers is some "the lone man of truth" over-the-top Randian drag act.
But as to the real point -- is overshooting (if it is overshooting) self-defeating, I'd point you to Negotiation 101. Never start with what you'll settle for -- demand the moon, then the inevitable compromise will get you somewhere that makes a positive difference. You know the folks on the other side are doing the same thing. In fact I'd have to think the polluters know with as much certainty as the scientists the real scope of warming, and Denial is just their opening bid to limit their regulation.
You seem to be very committed to this "feel good about yourself" rhetoric. You could as easily argue that the psychological motivation for the Deniers is some "the lone man of truth" over-the-top Randian drag act.
But as to the real point -- is overshooting (if it is overshooting) self-defeating, I'd point you to Negotiation 101. Never start with what you'll settle for -- demand the moon, then the inevitable compromise will get you somewhere that makes a positive difference. You know the folks on the other side are doing the same thing. In fact I'd have to think the polluters know with as much certainty as the scientists the real scope of warming, and Denial is just their opening bid to limit their regulation.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Of course, the beauty of carbon reduction programs is that there are many benefits beyond just reduced GHG emissions. Decreased dependence on imported oil, on fossil fuels, increased air quality, improved efficiency, etc.
There's a strong financial case to be made here, too.
Of course, the beauty of carbon reduction programs is that there are many benefits beyond just reduced GHG emissions. Decreased dependence on imported oil, on fossil fuels, increased air quality, improved efficiency, etc.
There's a strong financial case to be made here, too.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Don't know who the Deniers are.
I'm not talking about negotiation. I'm talking about what these folks actually claim is happening on this planet and what needs to be done to fix it. And they aren't even proposing remotely what is actually needed. I'd have more respect for them if they did. But they propose stuff that in the big picture will make little or no difference in fighting the global climate change they believe is happening. So it's the worst of both worlds. They don't get their climate fixed, yet we damage our economy. But, what they get out of it is they can say they did something.
Don't know who the Deniers are.
I'm not talking about negotiation. I'm talking about what these folks actually claim is happening on this planet and what needs to be done to fix it. And they aren't even proposing remotely what is actually needed. I'd have more respect for them if they did. But they propose stuff that in the big picture will make little or no difference in fighting the global climate change they believe is happening. So it's the worst of both worlds. They don't get their climate fixed, yet we damage our economy. But, what they get out of it is they can say they did something.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Put the Kool-aid down please. Carbon reduction schemes, like cap-and-trade, will slow and damage the economy. To argue otherwise is simply not credible. And we won't impact carbon meaningfully in the world. But, people can feel good, as noted before. Of course as our standard of living crumbles and more and more people lose jobs, feeling good won't feel so good anymore.
Put the Kool-aid down please. Carbon reduction schemes, like cap-and-trade, will slow and damage the economy. To argue otherwise is simply not credible. And we won't impact carbon meaningfully in the world. But, people can feel good, as noted before. Of course as our standard of living crumbles and more and more people lose jobs, feeling good won't feel so good anymore.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Then I guess I must be Incredible.
Are we really less better off because in the past we implemented regulation to help ensure clean water, clean air, less destruction of the ozone layer, safer cars? You could just as easily made the same argument before those measures were taken.
Many energy reduction studies have shown that taking steps to energy efficiency have a negative cost - they more than pay for themselves. Measures that encourage people and businesses to take those steps need not be destructive. Heck, I am a flaming green liberal and yet I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.
Then I guess I must be Incredible.
Are we really less better off because in the past we implemented regulation to help ensure clean water, clean air, less destruction of the ozone layer, safer cars? You could just as easily made the same argument before those measures were taken.
Many energy reduction studies have shown that taking steps to energy efficiency have a negative cost - they more than pay for themselves. Measures that encourage people and businesses to take those steps need not be destructive. Heck, I am a flaming green liberal and yet I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Earth.
I realize that not all scientists are completely objective but this demonization of science has always stuck me as self-serving and dangerous.
How is the pursuit of knowledge a bad thing? Should we make our decisions based on ignorance or greed? Who could/should provide knowledge if not for the scientists?
Earth.
I realize that not all scientists are completely objective but this demonization of science has always stuck me as self-serving and dangerous.
How is the pursuit of knowledge a bad thing? Should we make our decisions based on ignorance or greed? Who could/should provide knowledge if not for the scientists?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
That's hogwash. Unless you live in a mesh house with the AC on all day, most of these measures take a decade or more to pay for themselves. THat's not to say they aren't a good thing if you want to do them as an individual.
A typical business won't spend capital on anything unless it pays for itself within 3-5 years. A typical homeowner stays in their house for no more than seven years before moving. I'd put the payback threshold at five years max for a homeowner for it to make sense (unless they know with high certainty they will be there longer).
Then I guess I must be Incredible.
Are we really less better off because in the past we implemented regulation to help ensure clean water, clean air, less destruction of the ozone layer, safer cars? You could just as easily made the same argument before those measures were taken.
Many energy reduction studies have shown that taking steps to energy efficiency have a negative cost - they more than pay for themselves. Measures that encourage people and businesses to take those steps need not be destructive. Heck, I am a flaming green liberal and yet I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.
That's hogwash. Unless you live in a mesh house with the AC on all day, most of these measures take a decade or more to pay for themselves. THat's not to say they aren't a good thing if you want to do them as an individual.
A typical business won't spend capital on anything unless it pays for itself within 3-5 years. A typical homeowner stays in their house for no more than seven years before moving. I'd put the payback threshold at five years max for a homeowner for it to make sense (unless they know with high certainty they will be there longer).
Last edited:
huskyfan
New member
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
pursuit of knowledge is never a bad thing. trouble was the warmists wouldn't pursue knowledge. they said the science was settled. and anyone who opposed their view was an idiotic, Hilter-like moron.
pursuit of knowledge is never a bad thing. trouble was the warmists wouldn't pursue knowledge. they said the science was settled. and anyone who opposed their view was an idiotic, Hilter-like moron.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Sweeping generalization, meet sweeping generalization.
This kind of talk doesn't help anyone.
Sweeping generalization, meet sweeping generalization.
This kind of talk doesn't help anyone.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Sure it does, just not the people who should be helped.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Real easy scenario.
A scientist who studies global warming has a personal stake in whether global warming exists or not. If it exists, the scientist will get funding to study it. If it does not exist, the scientist will get no funding, because there is no sense in studying a phenomenon that does not exist.
I'm not saying every scientist out there is like this, but if you were a scientist who relied on funding to survive, don't you think there would be some sort of confirmation bias?
This isn't a demonization of science... this is just simple common sense. No person is going to intentionally put themselves out of work.
Real easy scenario.
A scientist who studies global warming has a personal stake in whether global warming exists or not. If it exists, the scientist will get funding to study it. If it does not exist, the scientist will get no funding, because there is no sense in studying a phenomenon that does not exist.
I'm not saying every scientist out there is like this, but if you were a scientist who relied on funding to survive, don't you think there would be some sort of confirmation bias?
This isn't a demonization of science... this is just simple common sense. No person is going to intentionally put themselves out of work.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
You really don't know how science works do you... there's a ton of social networking involved and accepted dogmas are certain a part and parcel of what goes on.
Red Cloud is right... confirmation bias is stunning. There are accepted wisdoms and if you step out of that it can cost you your prestige and money. Many of these people at the higher levels are in it for their egos... its their egos that have many pursue such things in the first place... as is their right... i wouldn't be doing my profession if I didn't aspire to greatness. Nevertheless, science can be rather dogmatic... ESPECIALLY when you realize that there is also a political objective of many of those in charge. Some of the most strikingly politically dogmatic (yes, I know, I know) are scientists because they are so certain of what they believe to be true.
Science in the abstract objective ideal doesn't exist... worse is that objective stances don't get you published. Science at its ideal is hypothesis making and evidence gathering... but it isn't easy, often isn't accurate, and if you are the only one doing complicated things in your way then peer review isn't exactly like going over each result with a fine-toothed comb... more of "yeah, this looks more or less right... time for lunch".
You really don't know how science works do you... there's a ton of social networking involved and accepted dogmas are certain a part and parcel of what goes on.
Red Cloud is right... confirmation bias is stunning. There are accepted wisdoms and if you step out of that it can cost you your prestige and money. Many of these people at the higher levels are in it for their egos... its their egos that have many pursue such things in the first place... as is their right... i wouldn't be doing my profession if I didn't aspire to greatness. Nevertheless, science can be rather dogmatic... ESPECIALLY when you realize that there is also a political objective of many of those in charge. Some of the most strikingly politically dogmatic (yes, I know, I know) are scientists because they are so certain of what they believe to be true.
Science in the abstract objective ideal doesn't exist... worse is that objective stances don't get you published. Science at its ideal is hypothesis making and evidence gathering... but it isn't easy, often isn't accurate, and if you are the only one doing complicated things in your way then peer review isn't exactly like going over each result with a fine-toothed comb... more of "yeah, this looks more or less right... time for lunch".
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
How should science be evaluated, then?
Surely, neither of you is suggesting that all science is self-interested, and therefore worthy of distrust. So what's the line between healthy skepticism and relativism?
Also there are about a bazillion micro-processes involved in climate change, whether geophysical, oceanic, atmospheric, what have you. No scientist is going to put herself out of a job.
Don't confuse the tens of thousands of scientists doing relevant research with the tens who try to actually make money "proving" global warming. Or, for that matter, the dozens who try to get rich "disproving" it.
How should science be evaluated, then?
Surely, neither of you is suggesting that all science is self-interested, and therefore worthy of distrust. So what's the line between healthy skepticism and relativism?
Also there are about a bazillion micro-processes involved in climate change, whether geophysical, oceanic, atmospheric, what have you. No scientist is going to put herself out of a job.
Don't confuse the tens of thousands of scientists doing relevant research with the tens who try to actually make money "proving" global warming. Or, for that matter, the dozens who try to get rich "disproving" it.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
The scary ones are the "scientists" and "engineers" that try to sell global warming.
In that, I mean coming up with solutions that are, indeed, worse than doing nothing. There are proposed solutions that from cradle to grave put out more CO2 than the current technology, but for the small part that the consumer uses- so the consumer does have that "feel good" thing that Bob speaks of.
My biggest worry (in that I've seen data both ways) right now are hybrid cars. I've not seen a credible source for the energy it takes to mine/recycle and then make both the batteries and motors used to see if the lower usage of gasoline is actually worth it. But I do know that the EPA is working on such a study (along with a LOT of other CO2 studies to determine the life cycle CO2 emissions).
The other thing that bugs me is when people are so quick to compromise big environmental gains for CO2 reduction. Currently, that is virtually all diesel drivers who use veggie oil of some type, and they pretend that they are doing good, when, in fact, their particulate emissions and NOx emissions are doing much more harm than their reduction in CO2 could ever do. I've seen SO many pre-95 diesels converted, and it just kills me. If you are going to do it, at least get one with decenet emissions control technology (even if diesels will not be as good as gas for their HC, NOx, CO and PM emissions- it's better than using old technology).
The scary ones are the "scientists" and "engineers" that try to sell global warming.
In that, I mean coming up with solutions that are, indeed, worse than doing nothing. There are proposed solutions that from cradle to grave put out more CO2 than the current technology, but for the small part that the consumer uses- so the consumer does have that "feel good" thing that Bob speaks of.
My biggest worry (in that I've seen data both ways) right now are hybrid cars. I've not seen a credible source for the energy it takes to mine/recycle and then make both the batteries and motors used to see if the lower usage of gasoline is actually worth it. But I do know that the EPA is working on such a study (along with a LOT of other CO2 studies to determine the life cycle CO2 emissions).
The other thing that bugs me is when people are so quick to compromise big environmental gains for CO2 reduction. Currently, that is virtually all diesel drivers who use veggie oil of some type, and they pretend that they are doing good, when, in fact, their particulate emissions and NOx emissions are doing much more harm than their reduction in CO2 could ever do. I've seen SO many pre-95 diesels converted, and it just kills me. If you are going to do it, at least get one with decenet emissions control technology (even if diesels will not be as good as gas for their HC, NOx, CO and PM emissions- it's better than using old technology).
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
I don't disagree with you on the so-called hybrids and other potentially pointless or destructive measures. But again, if we don't rely on science then we will simply never know the answers to any of the issues that you raise.
I don't disagree with you on the so-called hybrids and other potentially pointless or destructive measures. But again, if we don't rely on science then we will simply never know the answers to any of the issues that you raise.