I am no denialist but I must disagree that there is no debate. There MUST ALWAYS BE debate. But the debate should be between legitimate scientists who are academically qualified to disagree with or challenge their peers.
However, non-experts also have the right to question what experts say, to a certain degree and using logic. That is part of modern life.
But when it is all political bullshit of whatever stripe, then factuality goes out the window and spin, slander and exaggeration strut the stage.
I have utter contempt for the accuracy of the models but it is the IPCC reports, non? that are predicting the benefits of warming to North America... and part of that is wetter not drier so one struggles to see how the latest drought fits in with that... it doesn't and then there is of course the increased intensity of hurricanes but, er, that has not happened either... frequency and intensity have dropped since the relatively cool period of the 1970s so, er, um, yeah... models... um... but these are the reports that Fortigurn genuflects to so... one merely wishes to point out that the "science" of these reports is that we have nothing to worry about and even if we did, the Kyoto style efforts have done nothing but enrich NGO types who "want to make a difference..." but attending conferences in cool-ass cities that are very suitable for cool shots of them being cool...
When I say there is no debate, I am talking about the fact that there's an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. Scientists aren't sitting around debating it, and they would consider it idiotic if people told them 'No, you don't understand, stop; agreeing you silly scientists, you have to keep debating whether or not it's happening, there must always be debate'. There's no need for debate about this, any more than there's need for debate about evolution. When facts are established, people need to acknowledge them and act on them. It's this idea that there must always be debate which legitimizes the claim that everything is so uncertain we cannot legitimately take action on anything, which is exactly what people like fred smith want.
When you say 'There must always be debate', you're saying 'Teach the controversy'; 'Teach the controversy about evolution', 'Teach the controversy about global warming', 'Teach the controversy about smoking'. There is no controversy on these subjects. The only people calling for debate on them are the ignorant and the intellectually dishonest.
That's not a right, that's just people expressing their opinion; and yes, that's always going to happen.
Indeed, and it's encouraged by telling people they have the right to consider their uninformed opinions on a subject, of equal value as those professionally qualified in the field.
Hows the corn and soybean crop this year? Last I checked you had a big drought and 10's of billions of dollars were written off from potential yields. Worst drought in 50 years right?
Did the IPCC say the south west was going to get wetter? I don't think they did, in fact Im pretty sure they said the exact opposite. Well, that's what you get for getting your information from right wing blogs that misquote and cherry pick and then copy each other if that were in fact true. Yes more wildfires in California.
Storms like Katrina are pretty costly too right, just out of curiosity, what do you have up your sleeve to counterbalance the 150 odd billion US dollars of a storm like that causes in damages, and still end up with a net positive? Not that I am saying Katrina is 100% linked to global warming, but these are the things that are supposed to get stronger, so, just saying.
Then say that, don't say 'There must always be debate'. Of course AGW is not a 'newer theory', it's about 140 years old.
Then you're wrong. The scientific theory of AGW is not only older, but far more developed than the scientific theory of evolution. It's also better understood, there are far fewer information gaps, it has been tested robustly for over 100 years (more than double the amount of time for the theory of evolution), and it enjoyed successful predictions which were fulfilled repeatedly, long before the same could be done for evolution.
I checked the UNHCR; 'Non-experts have the right to dispute what qualified professionals arrive at as scholarly consensus', wasn't listed. Nor was anything remotely like what you said. I don't know of any country which has enshrined the right of the ignorant to contest the consensus of the professionally qualified and informed. The intellectually impoverished bleatings of those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect should be ridiculed, not protected.
What's the difference? If I am skeptical I want to hear both sides. Hence, a debate. Of course, it is ridiculous to debate whether there is a scientific consensus about AGW. Of course there is. But I don't see how the debate hurts us on an intellectual level, if it is sincere.
I mean the consensus that it is actually happening, among those qualified to say that it probably is, based on many persuasive facts and compelling observations, and a rigorous process of examining possible biases or errors and alternative theories. How old is that? The last IPCC report? The one before that?
Do they mention freedom of thought and freedom of expression? In which case that certainly entails being able to question the experts.
I believe that idiots have the right to say stupid things. That's a safety clause, else people could simply accuse their opponents of being idiots and deny them the right to their opinion on that basis. I also believe that intelligent non-experts have a right to use logic to examine underlying assumptions of science- or other fields of expertise. This is a safeguard against groupthink and "deformation professionel". For example, IMO a religious person has right to question Hawking's statements about God, depsite not being a Lucasian professor or mathematics. And Catholics should have the right to question the Church of Rome's assertions that birth control is against the will of God, without having a doctorate of divinity.
Yeah... so the last worst drought was 50 years ago... how do you explain that one?
Lots of fires are due to well-intended (cough cough) "conservation" efforts that result in major fires when one gets going. Start listening to those who know how to manage forests and there might be fewer of these.
More people are living near the coasts. They will pay the price. We should not insure them through federal subsidies. Katrina was particularly costly in terms of damage because of "well-meaning" engineering efforts that have resulted in wetlands being lost to such a degree that the open ocean is practicially miles away from New Orleans. The maps you see of Louisiana with the major protuberance are from the 1930s. A true map can be found online and the whole ecosystem and its degradation is described.
The problem with all you climate change alarmists is YOU pick and choose the facts, finding every normal disaster one to be directly linked to global warming and when it turns out that they are not... well, then, I think that you all understand why the climate change alarmists have lost so much credibility.
Final comment: Again, What are you going to do about it? This is the major issue and one that Fortigurn skates around desperately but like his predictions (haha) the ice is getting pretty thin and he would fall through if he tried to answer directly, which he does not. All proposed solutions to global warming are expensive as hell boondoggles that would destroy economies and enrich the "well-meaning" NGOs who prance around the world stage like that Cousteau fella but with the right coral necklace and appropriately cool tatoos. Yawn. Give them their own face book page, tell them how wonderful and important they are, how they and only they are TRULY making a difference and let them engage in their onanistic ego fulfillment or rather affirmation or validation trip on their own time and dime.
Your statement above has nothing to do with increased wildfires in IPCC.
Not at all. A natural disaster is a weather event, global warming is a climate event. Climate scientists do not point to a single specific weather event and say "this is definitely climate change". Doesn't happen like that.
Again you are showing how little you know. Proper solutions wouldn't enrich NGOs. In fact, proper solutions would likely see a decrease in the number of NGOs and a decrease in the contributions / funds to the remaining ones. As you have such a low impression of NGOs, you should be wholeheartedly supporting efforts to find solutions to the problems.
What government cost would be suitable for you?
Would it be US$25 billion? (cost of auto industry bailout)
Would it be US$1 trillion? (the cost of Bush tax cuts over a decade).
Would it be US$4 trillion? (cost of the 2 completely unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)
Would it be US$4.7 trillion (total disbursed so far in Wall St bailout).
Really? REALLY? Then, who exactly is pointing all the time to single specific weather events? and do you agree that these people should shut the hell up?
From Fred Smith:
Proper solution? Really? When is the last time you saw one of those? Would proper solutions decrease the number of NGOs? How does that follow? and why should I do anything wholeheartedly or not about a problem that I do not consider to be a problem and one that if I did would not be a problem that I or anyone else could do anything about?
I did not and do not support any bailout of the same.
I supported these because I think that if these tax cuts were not implemented that the economy would have been worse off and more important eventually the federal government would have found ways to spend these "extra" funds.
Very high end figure for what most put at $1.2 trillion over 10 years. I supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. I was always from the very beginning ambivalent about Afghanistan and remain so to this day. Another "well-meaning" effort. The war in Iraq was strategic and it has had payoffs that have benefited us directly. Remember that enforcing the no-fly zones was costing about one-third of the cost of the invasion and occupation per year. $40 billion vs. $120 billion.
What $4.7 trillion? and if you are speaking about TARP funds that were paid back, then the above is not as relevant.
$0. $0. $0. I can repeat this as many times as you can ask.
Nothing on this forum and those "voices" who have so adamantly "expressed" their concerns has done anything to shake my complete lack of confidence in the simpering, posturing, prancing poodles of Facebook page focused liberal leftie wanna-do-good-with-other-peoples-money wingnuts.
It is not polite but the truth is with the exception of Mick, all of the rest of the climate change panties in a twist squealing sophomoric suckers has anything other than the intensity of their feelings to go one. But it feels right and I want to make a difference and corporations are bad and must be punished while I either must expiate my consumerist sins or engage in witch dunking for those who continue to do so. History will be replete with the hysteria that occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s. It will be yet another chapter in man's running from rationalism to collapse cathartically and chthonically in his or her deeper darker recesses. The need to do good is strong even among the non-religious but bear witness to the full flowering of Satrian existentialist angst. We have moved from Descartes and "I think therefore I am" to "I feel therefore I am." Or even worse, "I am on facebook doing cool shit, therefore, my life must have a meaning... IT JUST MUST!!!"
Cause as the ultimate consumerism. Sad... even more pathetic than Kmart shoppers buying plastic shit but so unvisible to those who wish to present themselves as enlightened out of a desperate dream to justify the Kool-aid Lite education that they were given because it was all about self-esteem and never about being able to think, read or write critically... or to understand history in the full sweep of bread and circus contortions and Cool Cause of the Day.
I don't know who is pointing to single events all the time - you brought it up, not me. A series of single events can be a sign of a trend that, if it continues over time, can allow one to draw conclusions, but a single event on its own? No dice.
The majority of NGOs in this field work in regard to advocacy and education. If the right thing is being done by industry and government, then a lot of the work NGO's are currently doing becomes redundant. Quite obviously, they cannot keep working in this field if it's no longer needed.
So you're happy for the US government to spend trillions on wars based around non-existent weapons of mass destruction for which there's no evidence. You're perfectly happy for the government to hand out money to the richest in society. But ask for a cent to contribute to a global problem for which there's no longer any real scientific debate over the existence of and you cry foul? Lovely.
Ah yes, these feelings and concerns you always like to talk about. Of course it must be that. That must be the motivation. It couldn't for a moment be the science that supports what all these so-called prancing poodles are claiming.
No fred, there only one here who is speaking out of his ass is you. You don't think it's a problem. You don't feel we need to do anything about it. So of course, the world should abide by your feelings, right? Because they are based on sound scientific method and countless studies that well over 90% of the scientists working in the field agree upon. Oops, that's not you. You only have your feelings on the issue, and nothing legitimate to back them up. Feelings that are in disagreement with what all the experts and all the studies and all the science says.
You have no argument. All you do is post the same questions which get refuted time and time again, so you move the goalposts one more time, hide your head in the sand for awhile and throw a few more childish insults.
CF Images: You don't remember or recall any of the many breathless accounts of melting glaciers, melting ice caps, rising seas, droughts, extreme weather events, hurricanes, typhoons, and even TSUNAMIS!!!! during the Asian tsunami of 2004!!!! that have been attributed to global warming. Then, there are the polar bears... ain't heard nothing about them either? My what a quiet media-free environment you must live in.
Ah back to that old liberal trope BUT three reports (Duelfer, Butler and US Senate Intelligence) ALL concluded that Saddam had every intent of developing these weapons, and was merely waiting for Oil for Food (haha) to collapse in its full ignominy.
And there it is. "Hand out" money to the richest in society? It is THEIR money. The government is taking THEIR money and currently 50 percent of US citizens receive some sort of government assistance and do not pay any federal incomes taxes and you think that this is NOT a problem? Look to California, Detroit, Greece and the other members of the EU. Then, contrast this with pre-Thatcherite Britain and even Europe. Her reforms resulted in massive privatization across the continent and look to the end of communism in the rest of the world and the assine Third Worldist socialist policies of the developing world and then still promote, advocate and laud socialism? WTF?
As I have LONG said, which you emotionally invested people do not seem to understand is this.
FINE. Accept all tenets that global warming is occurring and that there is a 100 percent consensus that the world is warming.
EVEN TAKE the view that the MAJORITY of global warming is being caused by humans.
THEN, EVEN ACCEPT that the computer models are accurate (big if).
ADD to this that we KNOW within any reasonable ability what will happen to the climate if CO2 levels continue to rise at x, y, z...
What cost is going to result in what benefit?
All I have to add is that ONE question and NO ONE has been able to answer it because it cannot be answered. We have the Fortigurns who pound the science books like they were Medieval Bibles. THOU SHALT OBEY!!!!! THOU SHALT BELIEVE!!!
But what are the actual results? Since Kyoto collapsed, the problem is supposedly getting worse and YET every government around the world is less committed than ever to this "problem."
Germans spend $120 billion per year on solar panels and achieve what? a 23 second reduction? or is it all of 23 minutes reduction in the next century in CO2 and thus global warming levels. The same energy by traditional sources would have cost $10 billion so they have wasted $110 billion and why? to feel good about their efforts? And this is the policy prescription that you and others continue to promote? advocate? squeal for?
This is what the argument really boils down to. You want "action" because you watch what passes for unreflective news on CNN which is now nothing but a feature magazine with "heroes" engaging in Facebook-friendly "action" doing "admirable" activities that "have an impact on our world." But do they? How is the last major Rio summit any different than the last major rave in Ibiza? Ios? Mykynos? the Buddha Bar? It is about an entire generation of 20 and 30 year old who have gotten exalted degrees from august institutions which have watered down their standards to accept an even bigger pool of ever more underqualified students to keep their profit and loss statements in the black while never challenging this "self-esteem-focused" group to actually challenge them to think, read and write critically. Couple this with the detritus of the hippie movement and all its self-important "it is about the struggle man" bullshit and then the parasitical NGO types who swarm when they smell the money for a perfect trifecta of useless, posturing pandering pedantic pretentious prattling. And you want me to care? Why should I when the world and its governments so obviously does not?
I don't ask the media what they think of a scientific issue same as I don't ask a doctor to do my taxes.
Three reports is all it takes, is it? That's good to know. So all that's needed is for climate scientists to produce three reports and you'll be happy for the government to issue a blank check.
Ah yes, communism again. When you got nothing, roll out that one. :roflmao:
Better would be to ask what will it cost if we don't.
By far the majority of the expenditure in achieving solutions will be done by private companies who will make money back from it. So pose your questions to them. There will be profits to be made, same as their are profits to be made now from the current energy, farming etc industries. Most of what governments will need to do is create and enforce laws and regulations. It'll cost them a whole lot less than the wars you so love that are based on all of three reports.
And the rest of your rant descends into the usual nonsense that we've come to expect.
What will it cost if we do not act? Okay, then add up that cost. Still does not make any difference as you would have to show that we would be able to DO something about it. Your response is a non-response as it merely repeats in a negative way the earlier question/proposition.
Private sector? The private sector will create the solutions? Okay, show me where that is one of the central tenets of your climate change alarmism and not redistributionist efforts. I am merely thinking of the US$100 billion wealth transfer agreed upon at Copenhagen, of which the US is on the hook for $30 billion. Where is that money going and what good will the spending of the same do?
Three reports? Good. I accept that you now accept the three reports on Iraq and we can close that subject. I will accept that there are three reports out there on climate change as above. Good?
BUT.... the question still remains... what are you going to do about it? No one agrees what is going to happen, how much it will cost and even if we accept these widely varied reports and predictions, no one knows what to do about the problem.
So, you really have a problem with my skepticism? Perhaps, I should engage in the very same policies of the following governments:
All national governments in the EU
Pretty much every other government in the world
and continuue to attend international meetings that achieve nothing but where we all agree that there is a problem and that someone must do something about it? okay, from now on... I will enage on the climate change alarmist stance thus: There is a terrible problem and we must do something about it. Let's meet in say Bali this year and the Greek Islands next to discuss the problem for two weeks and at the end of the session we will release a communique that says... there is a problem and we must do something about it. We will commit ourselves to "raising awarness" and "taking action" and then meet again next year to discuss the very same things... If I am wrong in my assessment, please feel free to look over the past 20 years of action since Rio I and tell me what you think has been achieved in the past 20 years. Anything? and how much has been spent? and have CO2 emissions dropped? Have out of the ordinary events occurred? Well, there is a drought in the US and I would argue that MANY are saying this is proof of global warming... there was a drought in Russia two years ago and many people pointed to that as proof... seems we can scroll back in this very thread and find numerous examples of posters claiming single specfic events are caused by global warming and you, um, are unaware of these claims? perphaps, have not engaged in the very same yourself? Shall we take a look back through these 40 pages and count the number of examples where people have pointed to isolated events as proof of global warming? or would you rather give up on this exercise now?
There's so much wrong with your last post fred that I don't know where to start. So I won't. It's obvious that a) you don't know what you're talking about and b) you have no desire to learn, so I won't waste my time.
or the altnerative is that I do have a set of well-thought and well-forumulated opinions on this subject and they do not agree with yours and you cannot defend yours.
Is it Fred Smith or the climate change alarmists who frequently cite specific events, including the vast majority of media reporting on this subject, to point to "proof of the drastic effects of climate change?"
It has been 20 years since the first Rio Summit. What has been achieved?
Look at the Kyoto Treaty and the ramifications of its ignominous collapse, do we see more nations signing up to deal with this urgent problem or fewer? If the latter, why?
The number of NGOs working on climate change has mushroomed. Has there been any evidence that action by any of the same has led to improvement? by any measurable yardstick? lowered CO2 emissions? lowered world temperatures?
Much of the effort to deal with climate change has been about the need to "raise awareness." Do you believe that there remains a lack of awareness on the subject?
Assuming that climate change models can be correct, would you like to present the findings from one report on the same that you feel (haha) accurately represents your views on what will happen to the climate along with the attendant cost?
Assuming that climate change models can be correct, would you like to present the findings of one report on the same that you feel accurately predicts what action can be taken to result in what improvement in either CO2 emissions (decreases one would imagine would be best) and how these will lower world temperatures by x amount OR how this will maintain temperatures at the 2 degree Celsius benchmark. I will leave aside why and how the 2 degree Celsius benchmark was arrived at and just take it at face value as a desirable in its own right.
Many proposed policies have been discussed as to how to lower CO2 emissions. Among these are carbon trading and carbon taxes. Would you like to outline the successes that you see and where we could build upon these successes to achieve even greater CO2 emission decreases?
You have laughably, in my view, pointed to the private sector. This, after all, has been my frequent rejoinder. Why would the private sector need government direction in this area and how do you think that government can play a useful role? Again, would this be by setting carbon taxes and establishing carbon trading regimes? and if so, how would these be enforced and would global action be required? If the former, would you not be penalizing national companies and creating a comparative disadvantage? If the latter, what would it take to get developing nations like Russia, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria and Mexico on board?
One of the current methods of the global warming alarmist stance is policies that redistribute income from developed nations to those in the developing world to help them mitigate the effects of and adapt to climate change. Can you point to any example where this money has been, in your view, used well and where successful outcomes have been achieved. Can I ask that you not use "raising awarness" as a benchmark?
Why, in your view, is the climate change discussion a greater priority than eradicating AIDS or developing a malaria vaccine? Would it be a greater priority than protecting and enhancing women's rights? providing clean water? ensuring food security? providing free education? developing important infrastructure to lead to development?
The reason why I ask the above is for the following reasons:
Since World War II, any number of initiatives have attempted to address food security and economic development. Yet the nations who relied least on foreign or international aid and assistance are today the ones who least need assistance while those who relied on the aid and assistance most are still the most dependent on the same. Interestingly, we can also compare nations who turned away from dependence on aid and assistance (Brazil, Southeast Asia) and at what determination or conclusion would we arrive?
We can also compare a number of international initiatives, many of them headed up by the UN and similar international organizations. What have the successes been? How many layers of bureaucracy have been created? and how long has it been since the problem was first addressed and, if no notable achievements have been made, how much longer should the programs and the funding be continued? I would argue that the only really successful international efforts have been those that have had direct economic interests namely GATT now WTO.
Viewing the world, where have we seen the greatest improvement in environmental protection? and when? IF we both agree that this has been in the West and the rest of the developed and fast developing world, would you suggest that the results have been the results of government policy or private sector initiative or a balance of the two? If the latter, how important of a role did each play in achieving the outcome and how can this be replicated in the rest of the world?
We have seen how great cost has led to very little CO2 emission decreases by, for example, massive purchase of solar panels in Germany. Wind farms have also increasingly come under fire. Proponents often pushed the use of biofuels, including ethanol and palm oil most notably, with disastrous environmental and cost-effiency results. What assurances can you provide that similar incredibly market distortionist and money wasting efforts will not result in the same disastrous lack of benefit?
Rich nations are best able to deal with changing climates and natural disaters. Would you not agree then that the best solution would be to promote even faster economic growth so that more money is available to deal with these issues. Also see point three. Would a richer China and India not engage in similar environmental protection, recylcing efforts to great effect? And would not spurred development lead to perhaps more coal power plants BUT with reduced use of firewood and other poorly efficient fuel sources to great benefit?
Given all of the constraints placed upon development of energy resources and power plants, is there a source of energy that you would support? and would you also support regulatory reform to enable the cheaper, faster implementation of said resources?
I will relish the expectation of reading any of your responses to any of the same.
Nice and clear Fred. When you stop mewling like a spoiled house cat at all the commies ruining everything or how Nietzche was right all along, you can actually make some good contributions to the debate. ' Here's a fairly balanced article on the whole cost / benefit thing.
Looking at the above IPCC report, we find a graph which indicates that the Mississippi River valleys and the Russian portions of Eurasia will be prone to wetter weather. This does not chime in with the droughts that we have seen in the US and two years ago in Russia. So, will those who cite these now desist or is the IPCC climate modeling forecast now to be questioned? I mean if we look at the differences in 1995, 2001 and 2007, would we find major differences? especially regarding the now accepted primacy of the role of water vapor which was so studiously denied and attacked throughout the 1990s and well into the 2000s. Would those who led those attacks now like to concede officially? now that it is in the sacrosanct IPCC report?