Climate Change - Impacts, Part II


#621

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

A caricature? It is with deep regret that I must inform you that most of your moral stances, scientific certainty and passionate concerns are in fact nothing more than said caricatures.

Companies are fined for all sorts of infractions but there is a dangerous tendency to sue today for what was LEGAL yesterday. Manipulating nicotine levels? manipulating sugar levels? Branding? advertising? When does what was acceptable yesterday become a crime today? and… one worthy of billions in damages?


#622

Oh my. Fred is a legal scholar now as well as an environmental expert :roflmao:

Why exactly is this a “dangerous tendency”? Laws evolve. In 1950 it was de facto legal to set a burning crucifix in your black neighbour’s yard. Today it isn’t. Is this somehow a problem?

I suppose you’re talking about ex post facto laws, but that simply doesn’t happen. It’s illegal to pass such laws in most countries. Retrospective prosecutions only happen in cases where (a) companies were clearly aware of harm and (b) the laws of the time made such harm illegal, or at least could be construed as such. In other words, they’re not retrospective at all. In the case of cigarettes, it was already illegal to knowingly supply your customers with toxic substances. And of course it still is, but the law is very selectively applied.

One might also argue that, if a company is doing something that most of society agrees is immoral, and the law eventually catches up with them and smacks them down, it’s a case of too little too late rather than unfair treatment. It’s not as if the company would be unaware of the zeitgeist.


#623

And yet the following products are still sold:

  1. Tobacco
  2. Alcohol
  3. Sugar
  4. Fat
  5. Salt

So, when will some group of trial lawyers decide to fleece Hostess for Little Debbie Snack Cakes? And the dangers of tobacco were KNOWN for centuries and the tobacco companies were sued for behavior that was LEGAL in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s for health effects that happened in the 1990s. Likewise, this was behind much of the effort to quantify the dangers of second-hand smoke. Once the blood was in the water, the sharks circled. So don’t adopt the sanctimonious posture of the knowledgeable aggrieved. It doesn’t suit you well. And remember, just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Disagree? That is what votes and elections are for. Enough of the ochlocracy!


#624

I’m no legal scholar either, but it seems to me that lots of goods in society are associated with certain risks. Adequately informed of these risks, people have the right as free individuals to purchase these products. But when a company knowingly deceives its customers about the risk of its products by burying its own research, investing in PR campaigns to this purpose and so forth, this is where they rightly get into trouble. And when their products affect the health of bystanders and/or the public in general, and they knowingly lie about ~that~, they deserve whatever they get.


#625

And yet the following products are still sold:

  1. Tobacco
  2. Alcohol
  3. Sugar
  4. Fat
  5. Salt

So, when will some group of trial lawyers decide to fleece Hostess for Little Debbie Snack Cakes? And the dangers of tobacco were KNOWN for centuries and the tobacco companies were sued for behavior that was LEGAL in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s for health effects that happened in the 1990s. Likewise, this was behind much of the effort to quantify the dangers of second-hand smoke. Once the blood was in the water, the sharks circled. So don’t adopt the sanctimonious posture of the knowledgeable aggrieved. It doesn’t suit you well. And remember, just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Disagree? That is what votes and elections are for. Enough of the ochlocracy![/quote]

Well, as I said, the laws are selectively applied. There are far worse things than that being sold. Just because toxin A slides under the radar doesn’t mean toxins B thru Z should all be let off the hook too, does it?

As it happens I agree with you that people should be allowed to smoke (or drink, or eat supersize fries) if they want to, with the proviso that if (say) they drink to excess and kill someone driving home, they’re in deep shit.

I also agree that the whole cigarette thing was mostly a big moneymaking opportunity - after all, cigarettes are still on sale. The tobacco companies were prosecuted, as I and vay both noted, for lying to the public about the health risk of smoking. Doing that was illegal even in 1950, even though selling cigarettes was (and of course still is) legal. Apparently, it’s OK to sell people poisons as long as you tell them that they’re poisons, which is why we have mandatory ingredients lists on so-called “food”.

The cigarette companies can hardly claim they were ignorant of the law. Yes, the lawyers were laughing all the way to the bank, but the cigarette executives put themselves in a position where they could be exploited. It was their own stupid fault. The hilarious part is that - as recent events have shown - they could have told the truth from the get-go and people would have carried right on buying cigarettes.

Health effects that they knew, from their own research, would happen.

On the subject of sugar, fat, etc., it’s impossible to legislate those things away even if you wanted to. Fat and salt are not inherently harmful. They only become harmful in the context of the USDA diet, which has an excessive amount of (massively subsidized) starches. Similarly, sugar probably isn’t a big problem if you have a spoonful in your coffee in the morning; it only becomes a big problem if you’re drinking 24oz Cokes instead of coffee.

As I already said, the solution to market distortions is to stop distorting the market. If the USDA stopped promoting subsidies for junk food and bad farming practices, a price correction would follow and more healthy alternatives would look more attractive.


#626

[quote=“Vay”][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.[/quote]
And what’s wrong with policy makers?
Without these -bullshit- policy makers, you would be a slave to a certain king, back to the Middle Ages.
And actually what do the real policy makers suggest?
Micro economy, micro society, micro finance, micro loans, micro farming, micro whatever…
Just one example… uncdf.org/
Are you aware that real (not the ones on your TV) policy makers are suggesting you make the first step towards micro and responsiblity.
Yeah, I know, United Nations is bullshit and can ruin your life and your riches. Oh my!

Who said ‘Do nothing, and nothing will not be done.’ ? Please share official data, official numbers, and official proofs to support your comments. Thanks

PS. Not easy to stay polite on this topic.No official data, no official numbers, no proofs, nothing, just ‘you stupid’ ‘you more stupid’ ‘you not better than me’ ‘did you read?’


#627

I didn’t say anything was.

[quote]And actually what do the real policy makers suggest?
Micro economy, micro society, micro finance, micro loans, micro farming, micro whatever…
Just one example… uncdf.org/ [/quote]

Not sure how this relates to the topic.

[quote]Are you aware that real (not the ones on your TV) policy makers are suggesting you make the first step towards micro and responsiblity.
Yeah, I know, United Nations is bullshit and can ruin your life and your riches. Oh my![/quote]

Still not following.

If I remember right, it’s from Lao Zi’s Dao De Jing.

I will when that’s merited. Here I’m just trying to answer a point that IMO was expressed very vaguely, but seems to be saying that, because lots of people are dying for various reasons and other changes are happening, we shouldn’t be concerned that humans are warming the atmosphere through their fossil fuel emissions.

I haven’t called anyone stupid, and I’ve provided proof when necessary to the best of my ability, given it’s an internet argument. If I’ve said something you want me to back up with more than logic, let me know, and I will if I can.


#628

So keep arguing on the internet argument. Not for me. Thank you.


#629

So why did you bother posting then?

If all you’re after is an official statement, I’m sure the UN can oblige.


#630

Well.

I am willing to chat and discuss. The experience is quite poor so far.

The guy above refuted every single sentence without any proof. Up to the point that Lao Zi knows best about Change.

The key point is about change. Climate or not climate change is not important. Can I say again? The population has doubled in 60 years, when the Earth has not changed.

In terms of climate, the situation on Earth is dependent on the sun. You know, the sun… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun . Change some data by a millimeter, and earth is cooking or freezing.

At the same time, since population has doubled, material things have doubled too in quantity. More production, more pollution, more impact on the earth. Who doesn’t know that?

The impacts are here in Taiwan, and everywhere on Earth… polluted rivers, bald forests, health business, plastic food, ice melting. It is measured. It is known.

Since the population has changed, worldometers.info/ We need to change our habits, our lives, our modes of societies.

In any change, not everybody is willing to follow. Are you willing to give up your computer to save the earth? Yes, no, maybe… who knows?
Change… like everything in life, would not be fair and similar in all places.

Policy makers around the world are fighting this very debate… between the ‘Don’t fix if it ain’t broken’ (lobbies, business, even people… Look at the people unemployed if production is stopped, cars are all electric, we become vegetarian)… and ‘Wake up for a change’. Towards what new direction? Anybody left behind? Is that worth? Are new technologies reliable? New World Order? Are developed countries willing to learn a new life style?

Why do we need laws? Because we are not really ready. Even the most afraid of climate change will not give up his comfortable life.

It is happening now.

So how can we help? What can we do? This should be discussed. The revolution starts from inside.

The first step are towards micro and responsibility.
Micro economy, micro society, micro finance, micro loans, micro farming, micro whatever.
Back to the Earth, reconnect with the Earth and learn to live on it again.
Minimalism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

Please fill in the blanks.

(I wonder where you are going to block and create a new internet argument)


#631

Well, that is the entire point of the thread. Numbers have been introduced where necessary. However, sometimes numbers obscure the details, which is why we don’t just sit here posting official tables of data.

Example: we don’t need to give up computers to save the planet. I can give you some numbers to support that, but I hope you can figure out why without actually seeing the figures.


#632

[quote=“keroliver”]Well. I am willing to chat and discuss. The experience is quite poor so far.
The guy above refuted every single sentence without any proof. Up to the point that Lao Zi knows best about Change.[/quote]

I’m sorry your experience has been so disappointing. But please explain to me: what proof do I need to offer that:

  • I’ve got no general problem with policy-makers
  • I didn’t follow two of your points
  • I interpreted one of your points to be such-and-such, and that I thought you expressed it vaguely
  • I haven’t called anyone stupid

:ponder:


#633

Back to the actual topic of the thread now…

At least 26 dead as historic floods sweep West Virginia

[quote]The bodies of three more victims of West Virginia’s historic flooding were found overnight Saturday, according to county authorities, raising the death toll to 26 from torrential rains and high water that has destroyed more than 100 homes, washed out scores of roads and bridges and knocked out power to tens of thousands of people.

On Saturday, President Obama declared a major disaster for West Virginia and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the counties of Greenbrier, Kanawha and Nicholas.

The Kanawha County sheriff’s office said Saturday that one man was found in a home in the Clendenin area and two females were found in a home along the Elk River. The officials said it is presumed that all three had drowned.

At least 23 others, including an 8-year-old boy who was wading in a foot of water, were killed in the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday, according to the National Weather Service.
This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a “one-in-a-thousand-year event,” the weather service said.
[/quote]

Gosh, “one in a thousand”. Seems like we’re reading/hearing that phrase a lot these days. Coulda sworn the same exact expression was used to describe the recent flooding in Texas, and in Germany. Isn’t it weird, how statistically rare events are becoming so common?

But I digress. Meanwhile, over on the other coast:

26 million trees have died in the Sierra since October, raising fire risk

[quote]
A lethal combination of drought, heat and voracious bark beetles has killed 26 million trees in the Sierra Nevada over the last eight months – an alarming finding for a state already raging with wildfires fueled by desiccated landscapes.

The dire estimate offered Wednesday by federal officials brings the loss of trees since 2010 to at least 66 million, a number that is expected to increase considerably throughout the year, despite an average winter of rain and snow that brought some relief to urban Californians.

“Tree dies-offs of this magnitude are
unprecedented
and increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires that puts property and lives at risk,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.[/quote]

And on the other side of the Pacific, some amazing footage from recent extreme weather incidents in China:

“Intense rain wreaks havoc in southern China”

“China: Severe weather, including rare tornado, kills scores”


#634

Once in 1,000 year events? Why they seem to be happening every year now or so… OH WAIT! You are right! that PROVES something LOL!


#635

You’re right… it does. “Thousand year event” isn’t an expression. It’s a statistical description:

So when we see more and more of what used to be rare events, we can tell the climate dice are being loaded, so to speak.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/heavy-downpours-increasing


#636

You need to read up on Bayes’ Theorem, fred. The background rate of occurrence compared to the current rate does indeed tell you something useful, although I’m not going to use the word ‘prove’.


#637

Does the Bayes’ Theorem also analyze how solar energy use in the Philippines would be affected if only THEY would stop using their gas/oil generators?!!!


#638

To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that climate impacts in a particular country are in any way related to how much GHG that country emits.


#639

Is there a point here, or are you just reminding us that actual science (or math in this case) is of no interest to you?


#640

[quote]Is there a point here, or are you just reminding us that actual science (or math in this case) is of no interest to you?
[/quote]

I was more interested in making fun of your usual obsession with the gas-generator use among the rural Filipinos. Sorry if that remark went over your head. Anyway, I don’t see what the big deal with global warming is to you and Vay. I mean BOTH my house AND my office are air conditioned. Aren’t yours?