climate change times are a changin'

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I have not heard of a scientist that promotes just reducing emissions. Or of one who says removing CO2 from the atmosphere would not help the situation. I think the premise of your question relies on a strawman.

Wasn't the entire substance of the Kyoto Protocols devoted to getting countries to commit to reducing emissions? Isn't the explicit point of a carbon tax to make emissions more expensive, thereby giving people an economic incentive to reduce emissions? Perhaps "scientists" don't restrict their proposals only to limiting emissions. Must respectfully suggest that your characterization of "strawman" ignores all the political aspects that insist that we must reduce emissions to survive. I doubt there is any need for me to post five dozen links on this point, is there?

It is hard to advocate any strategy to do something about it when a large portion of the population refuse to acknowledge its existence.

It seems to me that you are not reading the situation the way it comes across to "ordinary people."

-- Oh, you say CO₂ emissions are a problem?
YES! We must stop heating our homes and driving cars at once! (yeah, I exaggerate, but what is the net effect of reduced emissions, eh?)
-- You're nuts.

compared to:

-- Oh, you say too much CO₂ in the atmosphere is a problem?
YES! we must implement technologies to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere at once?
-- Really? What does it cost and what does it involve?
The cost is minimal, there will be very little disruption to your daily live, and it relies on implementing a proven and tested technology more broadly.
-- Oh, that sound reasonable, tell me more.


There is at least a fanatical element to the conversation with some people who insist that everyone else must agree them, or be denigrated as stupid, ignorant, selfish, and evil. That hardly seems to be a very effective way to persuade people to adopt your concerns.



Or, as has been said before, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." I'll support a solution that involves removing CO₂ but I have yet to see a cost-benefit analysis that makes a drastic reduction in CO₂ emissions feasible. Given the costs and benefits involved, we may well be better off holistically by continuing to emit and then use the fruits of economic growth to adapt to the changes that are supposedly in store. I don't like the latter solution, but I can empathize with people who do prefer it. Just because someone doesn't agree with me, that doesn't make them stupid, nor ignorant, nor selfish.

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

So you're implicitly admitting that most [many] of your lines of questioning are for the purpose of partisan trolling. Got it.

Not quite. There are times when I mess with people who are complacent and dogmatic, but it is not for "partisan" purposes. It is merely because I find pompous people annoying, and consider it "sporting" to deflate them a little.

[unofan]

Not quite. There are times when I mess with people who are complacent and dogmatic, but it is not for "partisan" purposes. It is merely because I find pompous people annoying, and consider it "sporting" to deflate them a little.

So how often do you attempt to deflate yourself? And do you succeed?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Wasn't the entire substance of the Kyoto Protocols devoted to getting countries to commit to reducing emissions? Isn't the explicit point of a carbon tax to make emissions more expensive, thereby giving people an economic incentive to reduce emissions? Perhaps "scientists" don't restrict their proposals only to limiting emissions.

That was the low hanging fruit part of my comment

Must respectfully suggest that your characterization of "strawman" ignores all the political aspects that insist that we must reduce emissions to survive.

Honestly, I care far less about what politicians do. Not that it does not matter what they do, I just would rather talk science than politics. They should listen to their advisers (and appoint appropriate ones) but they don't. We do not have any large scale abilities, at this point, to sequester carbon so yes, we probably need to reduce emissions to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

It seems to me that you are not reading the situation the way it comes across to "ordinary people."

-- Oh, you say CO₂ emissions are a problem?
YES! We must stop heating our homes and driving cars at once! (yeah, I exaggerate, but what is the net effect of reduced emissions, eh?)
-- You're nuts.

compared to:

-- Oh, you say too much CO₂ in the atmosphere is a problem?
YES! we must implement technologies to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere at once?
-- Really? What does it cost and what does it involve?
The cost is minimal, there will be very little disruption to your daily live, and it relies on implementing a proven and tested technology more broadly.
-- Oh, that sound reasonable, tell me more.

I think even you know how ridiculous this is.

I'll support a solution that involves removing CO₂ but I have yet to see a cost-benefit analysis that makes a drastic reduction in CO₂ emissions feasible. Given the costs and benefits involved, we may well be better off holistically by continuing to emit and then use the fruits of economic growth to adapt to the changes that are supposedly in store.

Reading the primary literature of climate change is a hobby, not a job, for me but most of the articles I have read by the big players in the field would disagree. The cost of sea level rise is very significant and, if they are correct, does a very good job of offsetting the cost of reduced emissions and sequestration.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

There is at least a fanatical element to the conversation with some people who insist that everyone else must agree them, or be denigrated as stupid, ignorant, selfish, and evil. That hardly seems to be a very effective way to persuade people to adopt your concerns.

James Inhofe brings a snowball on the senate floor as proof that the climate isn't warming and you [pretend to] think it's the people on the other side of this "debate" who are poisoning the dialog

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

James Inhofe brings a snowball on the senate floor as proof that the climate isn't warming and you [pretend to] think it's the people on the other side of this "debate" who are poisoning the dialog

Are you familiar with a concept called the "Bell curve"? it has a tail on either side of the middle. Just because one might discuss, in a limited and narrow setting, that there is a tail on the left, certainly does not imply that there is no tail on the right.

It is generally known as "talking about two different things" or "talking past each other."

"Just because 'my guys' are crazy doesn't mean 'your guys' are any less crazy either." except that both fringes are too wacky for me.

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

most of the articles I have read by the big players in the field would [say that] the cost of sea level rise is very significant and, if they are correct, does a very good job of offsetting the cost of reduced emissions and sequestration.

If by "sequestration" you are using a sesquipedalian word to mean "remove CO₂" then we are in total and complete agreement.

It might be a useful contrast to look back on CFC emissions and the hole in the ozone layer: there, the science was far less controversial, it did not rely solely on complex computer models, there was a clear and immediate danger, and most important of all, there was obvious validation as the drastic reduction in CFC emissions did indeed lead to shrinking the ozone hole.

We still haven't figured out how to separate out the naturally-occurring background climate change from incremental effects of human activity. Also, the dire predictions are not clearly supported by the paleontological record, which indicates that, for many millions of years, atmospheric CO₂ levels were higher in prehistoric times than they are now.

Finally, my underlying point was that, if you really want to get consensus on addressing "climate change" in an effective manner, it would be far easier to rally people to your cause by giving them something effective and easy, rather than insisting on something difficult and costly, especially when the degree of the problem is still so unclear. The "consensus" is nowhere near as strong as you make it out to be that reduced emissions is the preferred way to go.

and I was speaking more to the public policy element of the problem. you didn't respond to that part, other than to dismiss it out of hand.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

James Inhofe brings a snowball on the senate floor as proof that the climate isn't warming and you [pretend to] think it's the people on the other side of this "debate" who are poisoning the dialog

The DC view of Inhofe is he's a very nice man (he's friends with half the Senate membership of either party) who's as dumb as a post. I think it was Franken who said Inhofe is so charming because when you beat him in a debate he isn't mad because he thinks he won.

[Slap Shot]

Are you familiar with a concept called the "Bell curve"? it has a tail on either side of the middle. Just because one might discuss, in a limited and narrow setting, that there is a tail on the left, certainly does not imply that there is no tail on the right.

It is generally known as "talking about two different things" or "talking past each other."

"Just because 'my guys' are crazy doesn't mean 'your guys' are any less crazy either." except that both fringes are too wacky for me.

You cant avoid talking past someone if like this post the message is utter nonsense.

[LynahFan]

If by "sequestration" you are using a sesquipedalian word to mean "remove CO₂" then we are in total and complete agreement.

It might be a useful contrast to look back on CFC emissions and the hole in the ozone layer: there, the science was far less controversial, it did not rely solely on complex computer models, there was a clear and immediate danger, and most important of all, there was obvious validation as the drastic reduction in CFC emissions did indeed lead to shrinking the ozone hole.

We still haven't figured out how to separate out the naturally-occurring background climate change from incremental effects of human activity. Also, the dire predictions are not clearly supported by the paleontological record, which indicates that, for many millions of years, atmospheric CO₂ levels were higher in prehistoric times than they are now.

Finally, my underlying point was that, if you really want to get consensus on addressing "climate change" in an effective manner, it would be far easier to rally people to your cause by giving them something effective and easy, rather than insisting on something difficult and costly, especially when the degree of the problem is still so unclear. The "consensus" is nowhere near as strong as you make it out to be that reduced emissions is the preferred way to go.

and I was speaking more to the public policy element of the problem. you didn't respond to that part, other than to dismiss it out of hand.

What, pray tell, makes you think that removing CO2 from the atmosphere is effective, easy, or cheap?

[joecct]

The DC view of Inhofe is he's a very nice man (he's friends with half the Senate membership of either party) who's as dumb as a post. I think it was Franken who said Inhofe is so charming because when you beat him in a debate he isn't mad because he thinks he won.

Wait. There's debate in the Senate? When did that happen?

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Wait. There's debate in the Senate? When did that happen?

It happens in committee when nobody's looking.

[LynahFan]

What, pray tell, makes you think that removing CO2 from the atmosphere is effective, easy, or cheap?

Cue the crickets...

[joecct]

Cue the crickets...

Don't take too much!

[mookie1995]

The DC view of Inhofe is he's a very nice man (he's friends with half the Senate membership of either party) who's as dumb as a post. I think it was Franken who said Inhofe is so charming because when you beat him in a debate he isn't mad because he thinks he won.

It is Franken who thinks he's won?!?