TJ McCaustland Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) This is why we must care about AGW now. Exactly the point of that philosophical rambling, my dear StringJunky. Edited July 1, 2015 by TJ McCaustland 1
StringJunky Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Exactly the point of that philosophical rambling, my dear StringJunky. Cool.
Phi for All Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 When it comes to AGW there is plenty to be skeptical about. The models and the background temperature AGW is plotted on to name two. Ocean acidification and sea level rise are less contentious for me personally but they too need additional study. Assuming that all the issues are settled is giving climatology too much credit and seems a bit like faith not evidence. Hey, the OP assumes AGW as a fact, and offers an approach based on that fact. If you want to argue against AGW, this isn't the thread in which to do it.
TJ McCaustland Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Hey, the OP assumes AGW as a fact, and offers an approach based on that fact. If you want to argue against AGW, this isn't the thread in which to do it. Dang it Phi you're right
Wolfhnd Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Hey, the OP assumes AGW as a fact, and offers an approach based on that fact. If you want to argue against AGW, this isn't the thread in which to do it. I didn't say it wasn't a fact. There is a huge difference between accepting AGW and predicting the consequences. Even if you accept that the models are highly accurate, which I would think scientists would be leary of doing, it's meaningless without knowing the background temperature which is proving difficult to predict. My point was simply that policy based on the current information assumes that the background temperature will be nearly constant and no science only history is needed to falsify that. For reasons I cannot explain historians and political scientist seem to be marginalized in the debate. Why the historical political and social upheaval caused by natural climate change is not part of the discussion eludes me. We know with some degree of certainty that cooling has been the cause of considerable human misery. For the most part these events are hard to see in the data due to resolution. Since climate change is a topic of interest these days surely it would be wise to consider short term as well as long term changes when discussing policy. To consider short term weather conditions on the order of months or a year doesn't require any scientific consensus because their consequences are in the historical record.
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 For reasons I cannot explain historians and political scientist seem to be marginalized in the debate. Why the historical political and social upheaval caused by natural climate change is not part of the discussion eludes me. Maybe because political and social upheaval do not change the science . But, as Phi noted, that's not the issue here. The OP assumes that AGW is true, and is exploring a scenario based on that. Opening a new thread to discuss some other issue is trivially easy.
Wolfhnd Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities "Farmers Insurance filed class action lawsuit last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area for failing to prepare for flooding. The suits argue towns should have known climate change would produce more flooding." http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0517/Climate-change-lawsuits-filed-against-some-200-US-communities Lawsuits are just one of the unintended consequences of the current political atmosphere. The irony is that in this case it is not a social activist or environmental group doing the suing but a cooperation.
iNow Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 And again... Not even in the vicinity of being on-topic.
Harold Squared Posted July 3, 2015 Author Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) OK Before you jump to any conclusions think, How would this affect you? Because without yourself in consideration how can you see the common person's view on this?The common person will find other and hopefully better things to watch from the stands and/or on television. Sponsors will find other places to plaster their corporate logos. Life will go on.And again... Not even in the vicinity of being on-topic.How is the victim hunt coming along? Looks like those communities would be fertile ground for you, buddy. Why NASCAR, etc.? Well, railroad locomotives are a tough target, moving a lot of cargo long distances on relatively little fuel. Diesel electric locomotives are the original hybrid vehicles, too. As for trucks, they are how everything gets everywhere. Everything in your house has been sent there on at least one truck, unless you built a log cabin the old fashioned way, from trees felled locally. By comparison, motorsports are trivial, both in CO2 output and impact on society. Easy money, ka-ching! Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities "Farmers Insurance filed class action lawsuit last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area for failing to prepare for flooding. The suits argue towns should have known climate change would produce more flooding." http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0517/Climate-change-lawsuits-filed-against-some-200-US-communities Lawsuits are just one of the unintended consequences of the current political atmosphere. The irony is that in this case it is not a social activist or environmental group doing the suing but a cooperation. I think you mean "corporation". But why hold those communities responsible and not the carbon emitting b*$t*rds who are really responsible? Every schoolboy knows that global warming can cause droughts, tornadoes, and mosquitoes as easily as floods! How can communities know what calamity can be coming due to the crafty evil gas? We had drought in Texas because of the global warming and now we have flooding because of it, just one example. No, the thing to do is strike the root to see the branches wither. When it comes to AGW there is plenty to be skeptical about. The models and the background temperature AGW is plotted on to name two. Ocean acidification and sea level rise are less contentious for me personally but they too need additional study. Assuming that all the issues are settled is giving climatology too much credit and seems a bit like faith not evidence. Heretic Alert, there. Set this poor errant soul straight, iNow. Every schoolboy knows the idyllic climate which prevailed up until 1950 too. It was paradise on Earth, it was. Edited July 3, 2015 by Harold Squared
StringJunky Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 ..It was paradise on Earth, it was. Ignorance was bliss, wasn't it?
swansont Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities "Farmers Insurance filed class action lawsuit last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area for failing to prepare for flooding. The suits argue towns should have known climate change would produce more flooding." If Farmers want the government to take action, maybe they should stop giving money to the GOP and candidates who block such action http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/farmers-insurance/f6e2b1c4e633490daa70d04e9a3c0b4c?cycle=2012 1
Wolfhnd Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 If Farmers want the government to take action, maybe they should stop giving money to the GOP and candidates who block such action http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/farmers-insurance/f6e2b1c4e633490daa70d04e9a3c0b4c?cycle=2012 Nice reply. I really wasn't trying to make a political point, I'm more interested in unintended consequences. You could argue that AGW over shadows other political and social issues but I would think everyone would agree that the policy decisions are not as simple as stop using fossil fuels.
swansont Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Nice reply. I really wasn't trying to make a political point, I'm more interested in unintended consequences. You could argue that AGW over shadows other political and social issues but I would think everyone would agree that the policy decisions are not as simple as stop using fossil fuels. Since that's not a policy that's on the table, that's moot.
Wolfhnd Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Since that's not a policy that's on the table, that's moot. What the I.P.C.C. recommendations are has been beat to death and as you say is not really on topic. What I guessed the topic to be was what the legal consequences of AGW might be. I admit I wasn't sufficiently careful of the social dynamic of the internet when reading the original post and ignored the attempt at sarcasm if that is what it was. I have a few links that deal with legal issues below. Climate change adaptation Guided by the Law A report on the Changing Winds: Climate Change & the Law workshops held in Suva, Fiji and Apia, Samoa, August 2013 https://files.dlapiper.com/files/Uploads/Documents/climate-change-adaptation-guided-by-the-law.pdf Liability and Redress for Human-Induced Global Warming "mitigation, adaptation measures have to be taken. Regardless of the adaptation measures taken, damages will occur. It is thus necessary to provide a framework for allocating responsibility for damage that has and will occur. The United Nations Framework Convention on Clamate Change (Climate Change Convention) does not mention the need for a liability regime. However a cmprehesive and effective international legal regime concerning global warming needs to include liability rules. " http://www.ielrc.org/content/a0701.pdf
swansont Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 What the I.P.C.C. recommendations are has been beat to death and as you say is not really on topic. Those aren't the IPCC recommendations, and I said it was moot (because that's not the recommendation).
Wolfhnd Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Those aren't the IPCC recommendations, and I said it was moot (because that's not the recommendation). I don't understand what you are saying?
Harold Squared Posted July 5, 2015 Author Posted July 5, 2015 As far as I know, the burden of proof is more lenient in civil proceedings vs criminal cases. That could be a point in our favor too. I don't understand what you are saying? Swanson is usually willing to elaborate and has been most generous with his time in doing so. Tracks the discussion better than some others I have noted, sometimes better than I have.
Harold Squared Posted July 6, 2015 Author Posted July 6, 2015 I traded my doubt for despair, it does not seem like such a good deal so far. Whatever, we persevere, right?
Harold Squared Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Anyway, we have Robert REDFORD on our side, plus the Pope. Now all we need are a few more celebrities, like Henry Winkler, Alex Trebek, and that guy who played Cliff Clavin on "Cheers". Edited July 7, 2015 by Harold Squared -1
iNow Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I presume by "our side" you mean the "reality-based community" in context of anthropogenic climate change, the one in which you've recently been pretending to be a constituent?
Harold Squared Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Screw that, we have Robert REDFORD! Do you think anybody cares that his scientific credentials are even less impressive than those of he who must not be named? By the way, I credit you with most of the heavy lifting regarding my changed point of view. Must have been all the scorn and cartoons, good to see you still have an amplitude of the former. I am trying to replicate your strategy with some of my former buddies but they just tell me to get lost. I guess it must be the lack of cartoons. This is not science, this is a marketing campaign now and the more celebrity spokespersons we have the better we shall fare. Edited July 7, 2015 by Harold Squared -3
swansont Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Screw that, we have Robert REDFORD! Do you think anybody cares that his scientific credentials are even less impressive than those of he who must not be named? By the way, I credit you with most of the heavy lifting regarding my changed point of view. Must have been all the scorn and cartoons, good to see you still have an amplitude of the former. I am trying to replicate your strategy with some of my former buddies but they just tell me to get lost. I guess it must be the lack of cartoons. This is not science, this is a marketing campaign now and the more celebrity spokespersons we have the better we shall fare. The "marketing" is not science, but the problem is that there is a fairly large group for whom science is not the issue — the truth will not sway them, and only makes them dig in their heels (I'm sure it's a fascinating psychological phenomenon). It is one of ideology, and when trying to combat that, you turn to crafting a convincing emotional argument. Without distorting the science, in this case. There's way too much of that on the other side. 1
TJ McCaustland Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So this has gone from "Harold is no longer a skeptic about AGW" to Robert Redford's credentials...... wow..... too off topic for me.....
Harold Squared Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) So this has gone from "Harold is no longer a skeptic about AGW" to Robert Redford's credentials...... wow..... too off topic for me.....Celebrity endorsements are a proven sales tactic. Have I mentioned the Pope yet? I am pretty sure I have not mentioned Jane Fonda. All these people have more name recognition than Harold, therefore their endorsements are "good news", conceivably better for the Cause than that of your humble correspondent. That being said, having a baccalaureate degree in the sciences might furnish kindly old Uncle Harold with better credentials than Redford's. The "marketing" is not science, but the problem is that there is a fairly large group for whom science is not the issue the truth will not sway them, and only makes them dig in their heels (I'm sure it's a fascinating psychological phenomenon). It is one of ideology, and when trying to combat that, you turn to crafting a convincing emotional argument. Without distorting the science, in this case. There's way too much of that on the other side. Too right, the science is settled, so why is research still being funded? I mean, how many times can we discover the same damned thing? It is probably moot anyhow, he who must not be named said we have only a decade to act back in '06. Carbon dioxide levels have gone nowhere but up since then. Might as well party hearty, guys! Edited July 8, 2015 by Harold Squared -1
swansont Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Too right, the science is settled, so why is research still being funded? I mean, how many times can we discover the same damned thing? We're not discovering the same thing.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now