Climate Change - Impacts, Part II


#601

[quote=“keroliver”][quote=“BrentGolf”]
Wouldn’t it be nice if in 2016 the debates we were having were practical ones about what to do about it, rather than it’s existence.
[/quote]

It will only happen if you all bring true data, not your feelings only.

Don’t worry, somebody has done it for us.

This somebody is the United Nations. It has set up 17 goals for sustainability.

un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

17 Goals to Transform Our World

But we are running out of time

At 8:02 PM, Taiwan Time, the world population is… 7,429,170,815[/quote]

The UN, broadly speaking, is full of shit.

“Ending poverty”. Well, that’s all lovely rainbows and unicorns stuff. Not one word on how they actually intend to achieve it. And funnily enough, not even a definition of what poverty is, except for a rather silly (and arbitrary) line in the sand at $1.25 a day. I submit that poverty, having seen it up close for most of my life, has little or nothing to do with fiat currency in general, or the US dollar specifically. Economics 101, Mr Ban Ki-Moon: paper money printed in Country X has no meaning whatsoever in Country Y where trade between countries X and Y is banned, or impractical, or highly asymmetrical, or simply of no interest to the inhabitants of X and Y.

Likewise with all the other crap about peace, justice and the American way. How is that going to actually happen? Not a single sentence about that. Lots of fluff and PR opportunities. Absolutely zero concrete plans. In other words, fuck the UN and the Toyota Hilux they rode in on. They’ve had 70 years and and a few hundred billion dollars to sort things out, and in that time they’ve caused nothing but trouble.


#602

[quote=“finley”]
The UN, broadly speaking, is full of shit.

“Ending poverty”. Well, that’s all lovely rainbows and unicorns stuff. Not one word on how they actually intend to achieve it. And funnily enough, not even a definition of what poverty is, except for a rather silly (and arbitrary) line in the sand at $1.25 a day. I submit that poverty, having seen it up close for most of my life, has little or nothing to do with fiat currency in general, or the US dollar specifically. Economics 101, Mr Ban Ki-Moon: paper money printed in Country X has no meaning whatsoever in Country Y where trade between countries X and Y is banned, or impractical, or highly asymmetrical, or simply of no interest to the inhabitants of X and Y.

Likewise with all the other crap about peace, justice and the American way. How is that going to actually happen? Not a single sentence about that. Lots of fluff and PR opportunities. Absolutely zero concrete plans. In other words, fuck the UN and the Toyota Hilux they rode in on. They’ve had 70 years and and a few hundred billion dollars to sort things out, and in that time they’ve caused nothing but trouble.[/quote]

Please share official data, official numbers, and official proofs to support your comments. Thanks


#603

[quote=“keroliver”][quote=“finley”]
The UN, broadly speaking, is full of shit.

“Ending poverty”. Well, that’s all lovely rainbows and unicorns stuff. Not one word on how they actually intend to achieve it. And funnily enough, not even a definition of what poverty is, except for a rather silly (and arbitrary) line in the sand at $1.25 a day. I submit that poverty, having seen it up close for most of my life, has little or nothing to do with fiat currency in general, or the US dollar specifically. Economics 101, Mr Ban Ki-Moon: paper money printed in Country X has no meaning whatsoever in Country Y where trade between countries X and Y is banned, or impractical, or highly asymmetrical, or simply of no interest to the inhabitants of X and Y.

Likewise with all the other crap about peace, justice and the American way. How is that going to actually happen? Not a single sentence about that. Lots of fluff and PR opportunities. Absolutely zero concrete plans. In other words, fuck the UN and the Toyota Hilux they rode in on. They’ve had 70 years and and a few hundred billion dollars to sort things out, and in that time they’ve caused nothing but trouble.[/quote]

Please share official data, official numbers, and official proofs to support your comments. Thanks[/quote]

Please refer to pages 1-59 of the thread you joined on page 60, as well as the other hundred+ pages of the other threads on climate change. I think you’ll find plenty of data posted from Vay, Finley, and a few others. Dare I say a mountain, a plethora of real data and numbers. :2cents:


#604

Read your own link. Do you see any specific proposals there? I don’t.

Perhaps I was being a little harsh. I was reading a while back about a WHO director who managed - despite massive opposition from the Department of No - to introduce simple, cheap and life-saving health interventions (eg. ORS) in various third-world countries. However, such successes are few and far between - because, as I just said, the UN seems to be astoundingly bad at planning and execution. All the best projects for water supply, sanitation, poverty alleviation etc etc are being run by tinpot private outfits, not the UN.


#605

No, thanks. You are not reading. Why should I read?

From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
First line: The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation.
It doesn’t say it has to be a superpower to save the world.
The United Nations is on task. It brings awareness and promotes international co-operation.
193 countries join the United Nations.
It’s written in the first line. Why do you need 60 pages to debate its function?

Please share official data, official numbers, and official proofs to support your reply. Thanks


#606

Um what? You don’t want to read the content of a link that you posted?

Of course I read it. I was deeply unimpressed by an excess of buzzwords and lack of genuine content. That’s why I commented on it.

Because what bureaucrats say and what they do are two entirely different things. Any idiot can write a mission statement.


#607

Um what? You don’t want to read the content of a link that you posted?

No, no, we posted at the same time. It was a reply to the previous message, not yours.

Of course I read it. I was deeply unimpressed by an excess of buzzwords and lack of genuine content. That’s why I commented on it.

What did you read? Do you expect the whole plan to be detailed in one webpage? Can you dig? and read?
In 5 seconds, I found un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N … 1-0ptR97s0
But I guess it’s full of shit.

Because what bureaucrats say and what they do are two entirely different things. Any idiot can write a mission statement.

Ok, so ask a Taiwan aboriginal person to write a mission statement for the whole Earth.
Please hand in your copy before the end of the world.
[/quote]

Thanks for the chat. I will come back when you will be at page 120, but still much more useful than bureaucrats.


#608

The issues are not quite so simple. The real issue was with regard to LEVELS of danger in these items. This was not some simple ruse to fool the people with one side good, the other side bad. It was NOT about cigarettes being unhealthy as they used to be called “coffin nails.” It was about nicotine levels in these cigarettes and how companies were deliberately manipulating them to make their product more desirable/addictive. One imagines then the next group to be sued will be alcohol companies for making their products more enticing and even food companies for adding sugar, salt and whatever else? Then, there was the whole issue of second-hand smoke. This was often a mere shakedown of companies by lawyers in class-action suits. HOW MUCH danger was there and HOW MUCH was the company/restaurant responsible? Finally, leaded gas or any gas as a combustible was not the issue but HOW MUCH the effects of this lead were having and who was responsible. This is not always about the “do gooders” triumphing over evil corporations but about evil lawyers pulling the sheep over the eyes of the do gooders to get them riled enough so that they will pick up their pitchforks and charge, enabling the lawyers to loot the coffers in the guise of “public service.” I smell something similar occurring in the climate change alarmism brigade. SOOOOO much money spent to achieve SOOOOO little.


#609

And I think there in lies your problem. You genuinely do see climate change as similar to those other examples, yet nearly no reputable scientists do. And I say nearly just to appease the not all crowd but let’s be honest, it’s none. But ok, very very very few scientists don’t see climate change as different than leaded gasoline and cigarettes.

There’s actually quite a few quantifiable reasons for thinking this climate change thing is slightly more dangerous than second hand smoke.


#610

[quote]And I think there in lies your problem. You genuinely do see climate change as similar to those other examples, yet nearly no reputable scientists do. And I say nearly just to appease the not all crowd but let’s be honest, it’s none. But ok, very very very few scientists don’t see climate change as different than leaded gasoline and cigarettes.

There’s actually quite a few quantifiable reasons for thinking this climate change thing is slightly more dangerous than second hand smoke.[/quote]

Didn’t read the thread again, did you? It was not I who made these comparisons but the alarmists saying denialism of climate change is akin to denialism over cigarettes and leaded gasoline… The issue has always been this: Who can sue to loot honest companies to fill the coffers of evil lawyers. Most honest and decent progress has occurred without such law suits. Right? Anyway for 35 years, those who claim to care about this issue have had center court. When do we get to ask them what they have achieved for the $$$s spent? WHEN?


#611

Ugh… where is the “facepalm” icon?

Isn’t the Internet great… you can just spout any nonsense you want with no substantiation whatsoever and it gets “published” for the world to see. This last one was so bad, made my head hurt.

EDIT: sorry, I shouldn’t get nasty. Let me try to quickly answer the parts of this that have a measure of substance:

In the case of cigarettes and leaded gas (among others), the likeness is that they were examples of real environmental problems denied by pertinent industries and their ideological friends, the free market fundamentalists who believe that there is no such thing as a negative externality. In the case of acid rain, CFC’s and leaded gas, the similarity was that they are examples of problems caused by collective behavior which were dealt with by government action. Never did anyone say that any of these were equivalent to global warming in terms of threat level.

I have to wonder, does this logical pretzel-twisting come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?

Substantiate these points. I do hope you aren’t calling cigarette or oil/gas companies “honest”.

I’ll quote a friend to answer:

[quote=“Vay”]
Your underlying assumptions seem to be:

  1. AGW isn’t real, or isn’t actually that dangerous - so all money spent on it is wasted
  2. government never does any good, and is therefore a giant sinkhole of money

Go back to my question to Buzzkill back on page 24: scientists discover a huge meteorite is on its way - though we can’t be sure when precisely it’s gonna hit. Wouldn’t we spend a ridiculous amount of money trying to learn everything we could about it? And even if the money being spent were not showing immediate, short-term benefits, would we then consider that money wasted? Along those lines, why do we spend money on near-Earth asteroid detection now? Why do we study earthquakes? Has the money thus spent allowed us to divert any asteroids or prevent any earthquakes, and if not, should we then consider that money wasted? How about money that goes to studying super-outbreaks that so far haven’t materialized?

On top of that, speaking in terms of jobs: there are horrendous costs already being incurred because of climate change. I’ve mentioned the dying shrimp industry in the Northeast, or the ski industry… but these are trivial examples compared to the economic costs of say the drought in the Southwest or the ultimate cost of sea level rise. And if the response will be, ‘Yes but spending money hasn’t stopped those impacts!’, well, true. But who here thinks that because so far investments aimed at understanding and hopefully preventing far worse consequences than these decades down the road is automatically money wasted because it hasn’t yet born fruit? Should we therefore just put our faith in God or The Invisible Hand or Stochasticity to solve the problem?

And of course, none of that considers … (for example) the lives that can be saved as we phase out the burning of coal. Last I remember, roughly 10,000 American lives are lost per year because of particulate-induced lung cancer. What’s the economic cost of that? Nor does the … argument really consider the jobs that are created as entrenched industries are displaced. Isn’t capitalism at least partly about creative destruction?

Finally, Finley has very eloquently brought this up before, but I think it deserves repeating: how much of the money invested in AGW research is spent to satisfy the demands of political pundits swayed by ideologically-driven self-styled skeptics whose skepticism knows no apparent limits (making it unfalsifiable, and thus, not really skepticism)? So isn’t it a little ironic that these same would-be skeptics complain about the cost of the research being done at least partly to convince them of something science has been reasonably certain about for quite a while?[/quote]


#612

worldometers.info/

World Population:
has reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011
is projected to reach 8 billion by 2024
has doubled in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion)
is currently growing at a rate of around 1.13 % per year
growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2%
growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years
average annual population change is currently estimated at over 80 million
world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2056
a tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history up to the year 1800 for world population to reach 1 billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), the fifth billion in 13 years (1987), the sixth billion in 12 years (1999) and the seventh billion in 12 years (2011). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
Sources for the world population counter:

World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (July 29, 2015)
International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division
For more detailed information:

World Population (Worldometers)

So what are we doing? chatting?


#613

oh sorry again to spill some (bullshit) official data from the (bullshit) United nations on your marvelous thread full of real knowledge and thinking.
Mick >> You can delete this post again >> sorry


#614

Now, let me ask you…

DON’T MOVE

Even in the most miserable case here in Taiwan, if you look around you, what do you see?

Walls, usually four, especially in the typical Taiwanese boxes, called houses
In this room, you see electricity plugs, lamps, lights, windows, beds, and shelves
In this house, you see toilets, stairs, others rooms, a kitchen (OMG, a kitchen!), a living room, a … whatever you want…

Did I mention fridge, oven, microwave oven, air conditioner and/or heater, television, computer, water heater, laundry machine, bla bla bla all electric devices

OK, so now, climate change or not, who cares…

If right now, in the 22nd of June 2016, everyone on earth has ALL these devices, then … well, then… we need to be ready for a change.

Ready, set, go…


#615

This is the problem with the Mindless Left. You may not like/approve of the products but that does not give you the right to demonize and loot the companies. That is called ochlocracy or mob rule. :noway: :noway: :noway:


#616

Change… like everything in life, would not be fair and similar in all places…

Some of us will just disappear… Let it be… Who cares? … Who cares about the 1000s of people dying here and there every day?
Some of us will just have to learn how to swim… There was a stupid movie about a city on the sea few years ago.
Some of us will just have to learn how to fly… There is/was a stupid movie about a man growing potatoes on Mars recently.
Some of us will… (Please complete the blanks)


#617

This is the problem with the Mindless Left. You may not like/approve of the products but that does not give you the right to demonize and loot the companies. That is called ochlocracy or mob rule. :noway: :noway: :noway:[/quote]

Show me where someone in this thread is “demonizing” or advocating “looting the companies” because he “doesn’t approve of their products”, and I will join you in your recrimination.


#618

[quote=“keroliver”]Change… like everything in life, would not be fair and similar in all places…

Some of us will just disappear… Let it be… Who cares? … Who cares about the 1000s of people dying here and there every day?
Some of us will just have to learn how to swim… There was a stupid movie about a city on the sea few years ago.
Some of us will just have to learn how to fly… There is/was a stupid movie about a man growing potatoes on Mars recently.
Some of us will… (Please complete the blanks)[/quote]

Yeah this is a great philosophy for policy-makers. Just fuck all of it. Whatever happens, happens. “Do nothing, and nothing will not be done.” That usually works out great for societies.


#619

That’d probably be me :laughing:

In theory, I would approve of making companies pay directly for the negative externalities they generate, or at least recognise that their products are inherently harmful. As opposed to, say, subsidizing them for creating even more mess. For example, I think GMOs should be heavily restricted because they cause genetic pollution in open-pollinated crops and encourage unnecessary use of biocides: that is, their manufacturers are trespassing on the rights of other (organic) farmers to make a living unmolested.

OTOH I would not like to target specific products for taxation purely on the basis that we don’t like those products. That way madness lies. There should be a well-defined cost (social or monetary) involved, and any tax extracted should be used directly to address the externality in question. However, governments are incapable of doing anything with tax income except wasting it, so in practice I would generally disapprove of such taxes regardless.


#620

Finley that was my point: shockingly enough, Fred’s statement was a caricature of what you actually think.