Clubfoothead Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 exactly, and with some honest, straightforward cost-benefit analysis. Please explain what you mean by a cost-benefit analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The point is that every climatologist who has studied this has found that humans are contributing to climate change, and there is something we can do about it. I agree that their beliefs should be challenged and modified as new research is done. I used to believe this....but my take now is that we should clean up our act because we affect other life on this planet... the affect we can have would be positive, but I don't see how we would stop the planet from going through this cycle...unless we focus on that which would be absurd... so in the end, we should clean up our act because it's the right thing to do....and also let the planet go through it's natural cycle... and please stop stalking me...you're very creepy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 the affect we can have would be positive, but I don't see how we would stop the planet from going through this cycle...unless we focus on that which would be absurd... You're wrong. There are simple things we can do to affect change. I'd expect to see them pretty well on their way to being implemented in under 3 years. I'd also expect 3 years of whining about it from Republicans despite no negative impact on anyone's actual life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You're wrong. There are simple things we can do to affect change. I'd expect to see them pretty well on their way to being implemented in under 3 years. I'd also expect 3 years of whining about it from Republicans despite no negative impact on anyone's actual life. the sun's mass is 330,000 times that of the earth. it could consume us with a burp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 Please explain what you mean by a cost-benefit analysis. what is the impact (both negative AND positive) on cities, ecosystems, etc. of, say, 1 degree greater global average temperature? what is the impact of 2 degrees, 5 degrees, and so on? accordingly, what exactly is the optimal temperature we should be shooting for? is it lower than it is now? higher? EXACTLY what it is now, or was 50 years ago, or will be 50 years from now? and how much is human activity really contributing? there is a clear incentive to overestimate that impact, IMO, because those kinds of findings get you more money, more attention, etc. the earth appears to have actually been cooling the last several years. now that doesn't totally invalidate the idea of anthropogenic warming, but it sure doesn't bolster it either. how many of those climate projection computer models we hear so much about predicted cooling over this past decade? I'm guessing none of them. lastly, what can we do to reduce or reverse the effects of undesireable warming (or cooling), and what are the costs? what is the bang for the buck? who ends up bearing the brunt of those costs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 yeah, it's pretty warm here right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You're wrong. There are simple things we can do to affect change. I'd expect to see them pretty well on their way to being implemented in under 3 years. I'd also expect 3 years of whining about it from Republicans despite no negative impact on anyone's actual life. what method would that be when our neighboring planet is going through the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 it has been proven that it isn't man made, I think since Mars is going through the same thing.... unless we are on Mars right now stinkin up the joint like we are on Earth... See this is why any discussion on global warming is a complete waste of time. The Democrats think that it is absolutely all man made, and the only solution is to stop using all petroleum products right now and everyone run outside and hug a tree. The Republicans believe with absolute certainly that either there is no climate change at all or agree that there is climate change going on, but it is simply the normal cycle of things. Either way, we should continue to use more and more petroleum products, because someone somewhere is making a ton of cash off of it. Making loads of money, regardless of the consequences is always a good thing. Besides, we have way more nukes than anyone else, so when we finally start running out of the stuff we will just take what we want. Also, there is no need to worry about pollution, because pollution always affects poor people more, and everyone knows that poor people never vote Republican. Mean while, funny thing is, no matter who is in charge, the Federal Government keeps getting bigger and bigger, and we keep spending more and more money, and the debt keeps growing and growing. How come is that? I thing Bioengineering is the way to go. First country that figures out how to do, can set the temperature at whatever they want, and who give a crap if it turns some other country’s breadbasket into a desert, or floods someone else’s coastal area and leaves a million people homeless. PooPoo happens, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 good to see you back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 good to see you back long time, no see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 See this is why any discussion on global warming is a complete waste of time. The Democrats think that it is absolutely all man made, and the only solution is to stop using all petroleum products right now and everyone run outside and hug a tree. The Republicans believe with absolute certainly that either there is no climate change at all or agree that there is climate change going on, but it is simply the normal cycle of things. Either way, we should continue to use more and more petroleum products, because someone somewhere is making a ton of cash off of it. Making loads of money, regardless of the consequences is always a good thing. Besides, we have way more nukes than anyone else, so when we finally start running out of the stuff we will just take what we want. Also, there is no need to worry about pollution, because pollution always affects poor people more, and everyone knows that poor people never vote Republican. Mean while, funny thing is, no matter who is in charge, the Federal Government keeps getting bigger and bigger, and we keep spending more and more money, and the debt keeps growing and growing. How come is that? I thing Bioengineering is the way to go. First country that figures out how to do, can set the temperature at whatever they want, and who give a crap if it turns some other country’s breadbasket into a desert, or floods someone else’s coastal area and leaves a million people homeless. PooPoo happens, right? ahaha we've already admitted to weather manipulation in Vietnam.... great post though.... ...I hate the whole democrat/republican thing because they are both two extremes... I find myself agreeing with some democratic views and also disagreeing with many.....and the same goes with republican views, but people seem to think you have to jump on either side with two feet... once we stop voting for people and their views and start voting on each individual policy itself, then we can start progressing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 what method would that be when our neighboring planet is going through the same thing? Your theory being that all the climate scientists who have studied this are wrong and that man isn't a major contributor to climate change. Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you about something that is proven yet you refuse to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Your theory being that all the climate scientists who have studied this are wrong and that man isn't a major contributor to climate change. Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you about something that is proven yet you refuse to believe. I said that?....you're a psycho ahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I would just like it if someone could finally answer the question... what is the perfect temperature/ideal climate for us to have as a goal for the planet? And it would be great if there were comprehensive and detailed reasons to back up any answer to that question. One that doesn't kill all the life in the ocean might be a good start. Tha'ts pretty dismissive of maybe the post important question in the entire debate. If we're going to spend Billions (maybe Trillions) world-wide in the name of combating Climate Change, I'd like to know what the goal is and why. What temperature should the planet be? What is ideal? If it fluctuates up or down from that ideal goal, what kind of fluctuation is acceptable? Let's say the global temperature goes down consistently for a year. Do we spend a bunch of money to try counteract that? Maybe a year isn't long enough. What if the global temperature goes down for a decade? Do we spend a bunch of money to try to counteract it then? Or what if it goes up? What exactly are we trying to get our global temperature to be? If we don't have that answer, then how do we know that any action on our part is the correct action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Tha'ts pretty dismissive of maybe the post important question in the entire debate. If we're going to spend Billions (maybe Trillions) world-wide in the name of combating Climate Change, I'd like to know what the goal is and why. What temperature should the planet be? What is ideal? If it fluctuates up or down from that ideal goal, what kind of fluctuation is acceptable? Let's say the global temperature goes down consistently for a year. Do we spend a bunch of money to try counteract that? Maybe a year isn't long enough. What if the global temperature goes down for a decade? Do we spend a bunch of money to try to counteract it then? Or what if it goes up? What exactly are we trying to get our global temperature to be? If we don't have that answer, then how do we know that any action on our part is the correct action? These are the exact types of questions that need to be asked an answered along with Az's cost benefit analysis. It could very well be that the cost of making the changes (I'm thinking in terms of climate engineering here, not the little day to day behavior changes that all of us can and should make) far exceeds the value we reap from them. More importantly, these are global issues. Let's say that tomorrow an international group of scientists declare that we need to lower the overall temperature 2 degrees Celcius to optimize the world. How would that impact the midwest and Canada? Could it make part of the Sahara Desert cultivatable? If so, would the addition of vegetation impact the current climate models? Will there be war because a 1000 square mile chunk of land just appeared out of the ocean between two fractious countries? Then, there is a not yet addressed religious component to all this. At some point there will be backlash from fundamentalists of all stripes claiming that we're intefering with their god's will. Will we have ecoterrorism in the name of a god? Quite simply, I think that people are drawing conclusions and proposing policy on things when we haven't even wrapped our hands around the entirety of the dataset, never mind identified the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Your theory being that all the climate scientists who have studied this are wrong and that man isn't a major contributor to climate change. Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you about something that is proven yet you refuse to believe. And again you ignore the question. Why is Mars doing the same thing? Like az has already stated, if we're throwing money at the problem wouldn't it make sense to throw it at the most effective solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Why is Mars doing the same thing? my god, you mean our irresponsible behavior is now affecting mars as well?!?! legislation people! we need legislation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) These are the exact types of questions that need to be asked an answered along with Az's cost benefit analysis. It could very well be that the cost of making the changes (I'm thinking in terms of climate engineering here, not the little day to day behavior changes that all of us can and should make) far exceeds the value we reap from them. More importantly, these are global issues. Let's say that tomorrow an international group of scientists declare that we need to lower the overall temperature 2 degrees Celcius to optimize the world. How would that impact the midwest and Canada? Could it make part of the Sahara Desert cultivatable? If so, would the addition of vegetation impact the current climate models? Will there be war because a 1000 square mile chunk of land just appeared out of the ocean between two fractious countries? Then, there is a not yet addressed religious component to all this. At some point there will be backlash from fundamentalists of all stripes claiming that we're intefering with their god's will. Will we have ecoterrorism in the name of a god? Quite simply, I think that people are drawing conclusions and proposing policy on things when we haven't even wrapped our hands around the entirety of the dataset, never mind identified the problem. I pretty much agree with every word you wrote there, particularly the conclusion. but reality is that people are shrieking we MUST take drastic action now. action, that according to their own research, might reduce global average temperatures by fractions of a degree over decades. I agree we haven't wrapped our hands around the entirety of the dataset, but others are vehemently convinced we HAVE. so, kinda the point of posting this thread is conceding, for the sake of argument, the urgency of reducing temperatures forthwith....but pointing out that there are probably more cost-effective ways of doing it than essentially taxing the bejeezus out of energy consumption in order to have a rather miniscule impact. Edited August 12, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Tha'ts pretty dismissive of maybe the post important question in the entire debate. If we're going to spend Billions (maybe Trillions) world-wide in the name of combating Climate Change, I'd like to know what the goal is and why. What temperature should the planet be? What is ideal? If it fluctuates up or down from that ideal goal, what kind of fluctuation is acceptable? Let's say the global temperature goes down consistently for a year. Do we spend a bunch of money to try counteract that? Maybe a year isn't long enough. What if the global temperature goes down for a decade? Do we spend a bunch of money to try to counteract it then? Or what if it goes up? What exactly are we trying to get our global temperature to be? If we don't have that answer, then how do we know that any action on our part is the correct action? These is exactly where the debate should be focused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 And again you ignore the question. Why is Mars doing the same thing? Umm, there is a cyclical temperature pattern on earth, no-one is denying that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Umm, there is a cyclical temperature pattern on earth, no-one is denying that. Great, but atomic is saying he's convinced NOW, we have all the evidence NOW, we need to do something NOW, and taxing the crap out of high carbon footprints seems to be his answer. I don't think the answer is yet there, but a healthy skepticism would appear warranted for those who want to make everyone else crap in a hole and live in a cave for their "mother". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 Have to agree here!!!111! we only have four months to save the planet! If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow. The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable. We have the power to change course. But we must do it now. As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future...We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity. We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Have to agree here!!!111! we only have four months to save the planet! They're right... we must pass the Stimulus Package NOW! Wait... which crisis are we talking about again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 They're right... we must pass the Stimulus Package NOW! Wait... which crisis are we talking about again? IDK, but don't waste it! Have to agree here!!!1!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Great, but atomic is saying he's convinced NOW, we have all the evidence NOW, we need to do something NOW, and taxing the crap out of high carbon footprints seems to be his answer. I don't think the answer is yet there, but a healthy skepticism would appear warranted for those who want to make everyone else crap in a hole and live in a cave for their "mother". Yes, crap in a hole and live in a cave and "tax the crap" out of everything. Clearly, I'm the one freaking out. Or, maybe it makes sense to stop assuming a subsidized oil economy is the only option. Maybe when I say it that way, I sound like the rational one and you with your "crap crap crap Have to agree here!" are the one freaking out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.