Poll

Should I lock this thread?

Yes, Lock it!  It's a sesspit!
2 (40%)
No, I'm entralled in the "debate"!
1 (20%)
Whatever, I'm just here for the show.
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: March 07, 2016, 01:37:11 PM

Author Topic: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread  (Read 87483 times)

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2016, 06:14:42 AM »
13 degrees F. Sure could use some global warming right now.

Good God. How hard is this for an adult human to understand?!

http://youtu.be/YbAWny7FV3w

It was a joke, Kris.

Respectfully, MoonShadow, I don't believe it was.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2016, 06:18:30 AM »
13 degrees F. Sure could use some global warming right now.

Good God. How hard is this for an adult human to understand?!

http://youtu.be/YbAWny7FV3w

It was a joke, Kris.

Respectfully, MoonShadow, I don't believe it was.

And I don't believe you have respect for your opposition, in any context, so that doesn't surprise me either.

I've got another video that I'd like you to respond to, Kris, if you can spare 4 minutes of your life.

https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2016, 06:42:33 AM »
13 degrees F. Sure could use some global warming right now.

Good God. How hard is this for an adult human to understand?!

http://youtu.be/YbAWny7FV3w

It was a joke, Kris.

Respectfully, MoonShadow, I don't believe it was.

And I don't believe you have respect for your opposition, in any context, so that doesn't surprise me either.


I have respect for people who can back up their arguments and not resort to logical fallacies.

As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change? 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2016, 07:37:10 AM »
Haven't we done this before?

Sort of, and I know that this is a dangerous topic to approach again, but I'm willing to try if the posters can stay civil.  You know, like in an actual debate.

Well - if your intent is to have a civil debate, it really doesn't help when you make comments like this (emphasis my own):
Quote
I have no intention of addressing cultural conflicts.  Even outright warfare might not be avoidable, either way.  Besides, Europe is a cultural basketcase anyway, and when the EU trade zone finally falls apart (and it will, because it was set up crappy) odds are good that generations old animosities will return to Europe, and then some morons (Spanish? Italians?) are going to get hostile with Germany for "war reparations" and wake the German war state.  Climate change might hasten that end, but it's going to happen anyway.  I find it amazing that you have managed to get along for almost a century at it is.

In a single post you managed to stereotype and put down all of Europe, and specifically insult the Spanish, Italians and Germans.
This makes me severely doubt that you are interested in having any sort of civil debate. 

The one point where I'll agree with you is that life will continue to go on just fine if/when the planet's temperature increases by several degrees.  It's very likely that we'll have more total primary productivity (plant growth).  However, the effects will be different for each species, with some some 'winning' (increasing in number) and some 'loosing'.

Speaking specifically to global warming, the problem that I don't think you are taking seriously is how many large cities are built on right on the coast, and how much infrastructure we have spent decades building that depend on certain regions being fertile and producing crops, other areas to store water, etc.

Could people migrate to better locations?  Absolutely.  Unfortunately we can't move buildings and roads, water pipes and electrical grids nearly so easily.  We're talking about over a billion people that will need to relocate, including the entirety of some very populated sovereign nations (take a look at the south pacific).  Where will they go?  Which nation(s) will take them in when they're already struggling to rebuild/relocate their own cities, develop entire new areas to harvest crops, find new sources of water?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 08:39:20 AM by nereo »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2016, 10:32:41 AM »
So if I understand Moonshadow's position correctly he doesn't care whether or not climate change is happening nor the cause. He believes that humans will survive one way or another and rather than make any effort to prevent, ameliorate or slow it down, we should simply pay the cost of climate change in terms of money, land, human lives and species.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2016, 11:38:45 AM »
So if I understand Moonshadow's position correctly he doesn't care whether or not climate change is happening nor the cause. He believes that humans will survive one way or another and rather than make any effort to prevent, ameliorate or slow it down, we should simply pay the cost of climate change in terms of money, land, human lives and species.

reading through his threads I see two points (hopefully Moonshadow can comment);
1) climate change, and in particular sea-level rise will be very slow, with a rise of perhaps 8" per decade. 
2) Humans as a species will not be threatened, and can adapt to such slow changes by migration or large-scale earthenworks projects to protect/move our populations away from coastal areas.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2016, 04:06:11 PM »

As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change?

Nope. Proof enough you couldn't spend 4 minutes.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2016, 04:10:15 PM »
So if I understand Moonshadow's position correctly he doesn't care whether or not climate change is happening nor the cause. He believes that humans will survive one way or another and rather than make any effort to prevent, ameliorate or slow it down, we should simply pay the cost of climate change in terms of money, land, human lives and species.

reading through his threads I see two points (hopefully Moonshadow can comment);
1) climate change, and in particular sea-level rise will be very slow, with a rise of perhaps 8" per decade. 
2) Humans as a species will not be threatened, and can adapt to such slow changes by migration or large-scale earthenworks projects to protect/move our populations away from coastal areas.

Yes, that is an accurate description of my position.  We are a highly adaptive species; given enough time we can adapt or overcome just about anything.  I'm not claiming that climate change will necessarily be bad or good on net, because I don't know and I don't really believe anyone else here does either, including the professionals.  I think that there are too many unknown variables to our climate systems. 

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2016, 04:35:30 PM »
Your inability to engage with the actual merits of arguments is frankly mind boggling. 

What a coincidence...I think exactly the same thing about you.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2016, 04:39:48 PM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2016, 05:04:40 PM »

As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change?

Nope. Proof enough you couldn't spend 4 minutes.

Omg, give me a break. I scrolled through it, but it isn't anything I haven't heard before. Believe me, I've spent a lot more than four minutes of my life reading articles on opposing views regarding climate change.

Pro tip: when a video has to refer to an ominous, conspiracy-theory "they" that "doesn't want you to know" about something, it's not much of an argument for credibility.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2016, 05:44:51 PM »
So if I understand Moonshadow's position correctly he doesn't care whether or not climate change is happening nor the cause. He believes that humans will survive one way or another and rather than make any effort to prevent, ameliorate or slow it down, we should simply pay the cost of climate change in terms of money, land, human lives and species.

reading through his threads I see two points (hopefully Moonshadow can comment);
1) climate change, and in particular sea-level rise will be very slow, with a rise of perhaps 8" per decade. 
2) Humans as a species will not be threatened, and can adapt to such slow changes by migration or large-scale earthenworks projects to protect/move our populations away from coastal areas.

Yes, that is an accurate description of my position.  We are a highly adaptive species; given enough time we can adapt or overcome just about anything.  I'm not claiming that climate change will necessarily be bad or good on net, because I don't know and I don't really believe anyone else here does either, including the professionals.  I think that there are too many unknown variables to our climate systems.

Ok - well I really am not sure why you started this thread then.  In your OP you mentioned that you wanted to have a civil discussion, but then you say that there are too many unknowns, that you don't believe the professionals, the models, or anyone one here.  So what exactly is there to discuss?

At the risk of the following comments being either ignored or completely disregarded, I'll respond to your two main points (outlined above)
#1 (Regarding the speed of climate change and changes in sea-level). 
We can look at things like the geological record and environmental proxies (ice cores, sediment cores, fossils etc) to see how the climate has changed in the past.  The curious thing is that changes in earth's climate have tended to be abrupt, with sea-levels holding for centuries and then rapidly shifting over just a few decades.  The record doesn't favor very incrimental, gradual change.  Rather the climate suddenly reaches a threshold where it shifts into an entirely new state. 

#2 (Regarding the argument that humans are adaptable and can easily manage any environmental change)
I do not disagree that humans as a species will find ways of adapting and surviving.  Barring some mega-asteroid or other cataclysmic event we will be here several hundred years from now.  What I disagree with is that on a societal level simply adjusting to climate change will be easier and cheaper than trying to reduce our present and future impacts.  Cities in particular take an astronomical amount of money to build, and most cities in teh world have been built on or near major waterways.  For the sake of argument, let's just look at a coastal city like Miami.  Sure, people could pick up and move out of the city en masse.  WE've seen this somewhat with cities like Detroit and New Orleans.  The big difference though is that this would be happening across the planet on almost every country on earth.  By some estimates more than 1/3 of all humans will need to pick up and move  somewhere else.  Can they do this?  Sure.  But I believe that this would be the most costly option, not the cheapest.  Look through any mass human exodus in history and you will see  starvation, war and poverty - the only difference is that this would occur not just in one region or in one country, but everywhere virtually simultaniously.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2016, 05:50:31 PM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Sure.

There's something called the 'urban heat island effect' that is a measurable and significant increase in temperature within large cities.  The temperature changes are measurable directly.  Temperature variations also cause changes to local wind patterns and development of fog and clouds.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2016, 05:56:34 PM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Sure.

There's something called the 'urban heat island effect' that is a measurable and significant increase in temperature within large cities.  The temperature changes are measurable directly.  Temperature variations also cause changes to local wind patterns and development of fog and clouds.

Also, check out all the research that has been done on 'desertification'. 
Briefly, when humans (or sometimes swarms of herbivorous mammals or insects) have removed the vegetation from a large enough area it can shift to a desert landscape.  It's happened on countless islands that were clear-cut to provide timber for ships.  It also happened in North Africa when cattle were introduced following the contraction of the Roman empire. 

In those areas, actual rainfall decreases by an order of magnitude, and average ground temperatures increase by ten degrees or more.  It's a similar phenominon as the 'heat-island' effect GuitarStv mentions above.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2016, 05:59:22 PM »

As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change?

Nope. Proof enough you couldn't spend 4 minutes.

Omg, give me a break. I scrolled through it, but it isn't anything I haven't heard before. Believe me, I've spent a lot more than four minutes of my life reading articles on opposing views regarding climate change.

Is that so?  So you already knew that we are in an inter-glaciation period, but still in an ice age?  Did you know that the poles have been ice free 4 times that we know of, and none of them managed to sterilize the planet?  Did you know that the time of the Roman age was warmer than today, or that the Medieval Warm Period might have been also?  I'd find that impressive, since that would make you a very rare advocate.

Quote
Pro tip: when a video has to refer to an ominous, conspiracy-theory "they" that "doesn't want you to know" about something, it's not much of an argument for credibility.

That's just a clickbait title.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #66 on: January 19, 2016, 06:26:45 PM »
So if I understand Moonshadow's position correctly he doesn't care whether or not climate change is happening nor the cause. He believes that humans will survive one way or another and rather than make any effort to prevent, ameliorate or slow it down, we should simply pay the cost of climate change in terms of money, land, human lives and species.

reading through his threads I see two points (hopefully Moonshadow can comment);
1) climate change, and in particular sea-level rise will be very slow, with a rise of perhaps 8" per decade. 
2) Humans as a species will not be threatened, and can adapt to such slow changes by migration or large-scale earthenworks projects to protect/move our populations away from coastal areas.

Yes, that is an accurate description of my position.  We are a highly adaptive species; given enough time we can adapt or overcome just about anything.  I'm not claiming that climate change will necessarily be bad or good on net, because I don't know and I don't really believe anyone else here does either, including the professionals.  I think that there are too many unknown variables to our climate systems.

Ok - well I really am not sure why you started this thread then.  In your OP you mentioned that you wanted to have a civil discussion, but then you say that there are too many unknowns, that you don't believe the professionals, the models, or anyone one here.  So what exactly is there to discuss?

I honestly don't know.  I was challenged to a debate by another, and asked to start the thread.  So I did.

Quote
At the risk of the following comments being either ignored or completely disregarded, I'll respond to your two main points (outlined above)
#1 (Regarding the speed of climate change and changes in sea-level). 
We can look at things like the geological record and environmental proxies (ice cores, sediment cores, fossils etc) to see how the climate has changed in the past.  The curious thing is that changes in earth's climate have tended to be abrupt, with sea-levels holding for centuries and then rapidly shifting over just a few decades.  The record doesn't favor very incrimental, gradual change.  Rather the climate suddenly reaches a threshold where it shifts into an entirely new state. 

True, but that is also the natural course of things, not the human caused climate change model.  If you are arguing that these changes are natural, and that we should expect a shift in climate over decades instead of centuries; I will consider the position.  One main reason that we see climate changing rapidly in the geological record is due to huge meteor impacts that kick up enough dirt into the atmosphere that some of it achieves escape velocity, and hovers around the Earth_Moon gravity field for decades before returning to Earth's atmosphere; effectively creating a decades long nuclear winter.  Of course, this ends up killing off 80%+ of life on the planet, even though it doesn't have time to actually glaciate the Earth.  This results in billions of tons of rotting plantmatter giving off billions of tons of CO2, S02 & methane; and then a climate snap-back as the surviving plantlife once again takes over the Earth.  There are a lot of ways this can play out, and a lot of plausible explainations that fit the facts that we know of, which really are not that many.

Quote
#2 (Regarding the argument that humans are adaptable and can easily manage any environmental change)
I do not disagree that humans as a species will find ways of adapting and surviving.  Barring some mega-asteroid or other cataclysmic event we will be here several hundred years from now.  What I disagree with is that on a societal level simply adjusting to climate change will be easier and cheaper than trying to reduce our present and future impacts. Cities in particular take an astronomical amount of money to build, and most cities in teh world have been built on or near major waterways.  For the sake of argument, let's just look at a coastal city like Miami.  Sure, people could pick up and move out of the city en masse.  WE've seen this somewhat with cities like Detroit and New Orleans.  The big difference though is that this would be happening across the planet on almost every country on earth.  By some estimates more than 1/3 of all humans will need to pick up and move  somewhere else.  Can they do this?  Sure.  But I believe that this would be the most costly option, not the cheapest.  Look through any mass human exodus in history and you will see  starvation, war and poverty - the only difference is that this would occur not just in one region or in one country, but everywhere virtually simultaniously.

This argument keeps turning up, but it's not factually true from a capital investment perspective.  Yes, cities are huge capital investments; but they are also huge maintenance investments.  We can build a new city for less capital costs than it takes to maintain one in place for more than a century, if we had a single example of a city that was static for that long.  The reality is that our modern cities are constantly being torn down & rebuilt in small pieces all of the time.  Choose any city you wish, and if you can even find a building older than 120 years, the capital costs of maintenance would have replaced the building within 60 or less.  Now, a well maintained building, however old it may be, is tough thing to simply abandon and replace 2 or 4 miles away; but the differences in capital costs over the course of a century or more is not likely to be discernible even by economists.  The cheapest thing to do is simply use zoning law to discourage new construction within the predicted flood and tidal zones 200 years from now, and let owners decide how long to keep & maintain their existing buildings in these areas.  Some may choose to move & replace, others may choose to simply alter their lower floors to accommodate the possibility of a rising groundwater table & increased odds of tidal flooding.  The football stadium in downtown Cincinnati was built with it's own flood wall to protect it from the Ohio River, since downtown Cincinnati does not have such a wall.  Across the river, the cities of Newport, Kentucky & Covington Ky have huge flood walls & massive stormwater pumps to protect the entire city.  Different strokes for different blokes, mate.  I can't claim to be able to predict all of the ways that societies will choose to adapt to climate change, but I know that I can count on the ingenuity of the human species.  My point is that we have time to think about it, no matter who you ask; so long as we are not hit by another huge meteor in the meantime.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2016, 06:54:51 PM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Sure.

There's something called the 'urban heat island effect' that is a measurable and significant increase in temperature within large cities.  The temperature changes are measurable directly.  Temperature variations also cause changes to local wind patterns and development of fog and clouds.

I'm talking about actually changing the weather, not creating a local warm spot due to construction. Big difference.

However, since you brought up the urban heat island effect, are you aware that many of the official temperature stations that were once isolated in open areas are now located near man-made heat sources such as AC vents, or asphalt parking lots due to development? That's one reason why "official" temperature records don't tell the whole story.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #68 on: January 19, 2016, 06:57:31 PM »
This argument keeps turning up, but it's not factually true from a capital investment perspective.  Yes, cities are huge capital investments; but they are also huge maintenance investments.  We can build a new city for less capital costs than it takes to maintain one in place for more than a century, if we had a single example of a city that was static for that long.  The reality is that our modern cities are constantly being torn down & rebuilt in small pieces all of the time.  Choose any city you wish, and if you can even find a building older than 120 years, the capital costs of maintenance would have replaced the building within 60 or less.  Now, a well maintained building, however old it may be, is tough thing to simply abandon and replace 2 or 4 miles away; but the differences in capital costs over the course of a century or more is not likely to be discernible even by economists.  The cheapest thing to do is simply use zoning law to discourage new construction within the predicted flood and tidal zones 200 years from now, and let owners decide how long to keep & maintain their existing buildings in these areas.  Some may choose to move & replace, others may choose to simply alter their lower floors to accommodate the possibility of a rising groundwater table & increased odds of tidal flooding.  The football stadium in downtown Cincinnati was built with it's own flood wall to protect it from the Ohio River, since downtown Cincinnati does not have such a wall.  Across the river, the cities of Newport, Kentucky & Covington Ky have huge flood walls & massive stormwater pumps to protect the entire city.  Different strokes for different blokes, mate.  I can't claim to be able to predict all of the ways that societies will choose to adapt to climate change, but I know that I can count on the ingenuity of the human species.  My point is that we have time to think about it, no matter who you ask; so long as we are not hit by another huge meteor in the meantime.

Well stated.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #69 on: January 19, 2016, 07:03:51 PM »
This argument keeps turning up, but it's not factually true from a capital investment perspective.  Yes, cities are huge capital investments; but they are also huge maintenance investments.  We can build a new city for less capital costs than it takes to maintain one in place for more than a century, if we had a single example of a city that was static for that long.  The reality is that our modern cities are constantly being torn down & rebuilt in small pieces all of the time.  Choose any city you wish, and if you can even find a building older than 120 years, the capital costs of maintenance would have replaced the building within 60 or less.  Now, a well maintained building, however old it may be, is tough thing to simply abandon and replace 2 or 4 miles away; but the differences in capital costs over the course of a century or more is not likely to be discernible even by economists.  The cheapest thing to do is simply use zoning law to discourage new construction within the predicted flood and tidal zones 200 years from now, and let owners decide how long to keep & maintain their existing buildings in these areas.  Some may choose to move & replace, others may choose to simply alter their lower floors to accommodate the possibility of a rising groundwater table & increased odds of tidal flooding.  The football stadium in downtown Cincinnati was built with it's own flood wall to protect it from the Ohio River, since downtown Cincinnati does not have such a wall.  Across the river, the cities of Newport, Kentucky & Covington Ky have huge flood walls & massive stormwater pumps to protect the entire city.  Different strokes for different blokes, mate.  I can't claim to be able to predict all of the ways that societies will choose to adapt to climate change, but I know that I can count on the ingenuity of the human species.  My point is that we have time to think about it, no matter who you ask; so long as we are not hit by another huge meteor in the meantime.

Well stated.

Why would this same argument not also apply to our energy infrastructure?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #70 on: January 19, 2016, 07:17:15 PM »
Why would this same argument not also apply to our energy infrastructure?

It probably would.  Why do you ask?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #71 on: January 19, 2016, 07:26:25 PM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Sure.

There's something called the 'urban heat island effect' that is a measurable and significant increase in temperature within large cities.  The temperature changes are measurable directly.  Temperature variations also cause changes to local wind patterns and development of fog and clouds.

I'm talking about actually changing the weather, not creating a local warm spot due to construction. Big difference.

However, since you brought up the urban heat island effect, are you aware that many of the official temperature stations that were once isolated in open areas are now located near man-made heat sources such as AC vents, or asphalt parking lots due to development? That's one reason why "official" temperature records don't tell the whole story.
I'm not sure that you are understanding the urban heat island effect.  To be sure the name hasn't helped as it suggests just a change in temperature, but large cities change more than simply the average temperatures.  As GuitarStv mentioned, they also affect precipitation (rain, fog, clouds), evaporation and wind patterns in a very real way.  So can the removal of trees from mountain sides and large-scale agriculture.  The eutrophication of alpine lakes means they freeze later (or not at all) which creates 'lake-effect' conditions (more snow, more moisture, warmer temperatures) around the shore as open lake water lends moisture to winter winds.  Entire valleys have been enshrouded in smog (latest examples; Beijing & Delhi) changing everything from the sunlight to precipitation and temperature.  We've seeded clouds for decades to induce rainfall, and irrigated entire plains creating evaporation and clouds further downwind.

These are all very well known and well documented instances where humans impact the weather.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #72 on: January 19, 2016, 07:35:21 PM »
Here's another way in which "warmer is better" is BS:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10716530/zika-virus-disease?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=monday

I just got around to reading this, and the point is a valid one.  Worse yet, I can think of several more tropical diseases that are much more dangerous than the Zika virus.  And then there are Africanized honey bees and their ever northward growing range.  Still, this doesn't alter my argument; humanity will continue to survive and adapt, even when some number of individual humans do not.  It may be harsh, but that is how the real world works.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #73 on: January 19, 2016, 07:46:37 PM »
Here's another way in which "warmer is better" is BS:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10716530/zika-virus-disease?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=monday

I just got around to reading this, and the point is a valid one.  Worse yet, I can think of several more tropical diseases that are much more dangerous than the Zika virus.  And then there are Africanized honey bees and their ever northward growing range.  Still, this doesn't alter my argument; humanity will continue to survive and adapt, even when some number of individual humans do not.  It may be harsh, but that is how the real world works.

But much easier to shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, that's the way it is," when you and yours are not directly concerned. Yes, humanity will probably survive and adapt.  But a lot of misery lies down that path of complacency, which could be avoided or at least mitigated if the response of so many in rich areas that won't be the first to suffer Had a little more humanity.  You  might feel different about whether this was a pressing concern if you lived in Brazil and your wife was currently pregnant.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #74 on: January 19, 2016, 08:20:32 PM »
Here's another way in which "warmer is better" is BS:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10716530/zika-virus-disease?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=monday

I just got around to reading this, and the point is a valid one.  Worse yet, I can think of several more tropical diseases that are much more dangerous than the Zika virus.  And then there are Africanized honey bees and their ever northward growing range.  Still, this doesn't alter my argument; humanity will continue to survive and adapt, even when some number of individual humans do not.  It may be harsh, but that is how the real world works.

But much easier to shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, that's the way it is," when you and yours are not directly concerned. Yes, humanity will probably survive and adapt.  But a lot of misery lies down that path of complacency, which could be avoided or at least mitigated if the response of so many in rich areas that won't be the first to suffer Had a little more humanity.

Maybe it could be avoided, maybe it could not.  You seem to believe that mitigation of that outcome is probable; but that is not a common view from either side of this debate.  If we take the climate summit results recently out of Paris, the very best we can hope for is about a half a degree Celsius of mitigation over the next century; and even that would come at great economic cost.  A cost that, most likely, will have the greatest impact on the lives of the world's poorest people; not the middle class & higher among the wealthiest nations.  So suffering may not be avoidable, and by diversion of the capital of societies on the hopes of climate change mitigation might yet end up causing equal or greater suffering via another vector of poverty.  Would our efforts & wealth be better spent figuring out how to grow different crops better suited to climate changes in particular regions?  Or perhaps (gasp!) genetic modifications of crops to make them more resilient?  What about research into cheaper/more effective treatments for the most common causes of childhood death in tropical regions; such as malaria or diarrhea?  Or even just premature birth?

http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/causes/en/

There is nothing that you could hope to accomplish via government action that will not have negative, and often unforeseen, impacts in some other area of society.  That is a simple fact of economics.

Quote
  You  might feel different about whether this was a pressing concern if you lived in Brazil and your wife was currently pregnant.

My wife's family has a genetic history of congenital blindness; and my own family has a history of congenital kidney disease that leads to early death.  The increased risk of birth defects due to the Zita virus is far & away from the most pressing of medical risks in pregnecy, and not a rational argument for drastically altering the fossil fueled nature of our energy infrastructure in the near term.

BTW, my son was born without irides.  None at all.  He can't physically moderate his own light intake, nor adjust to glare.  He wears self-tinting sunglasses all of the time to adapt, and wore infant sized sunglasses from 3 months on up. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to get sunglasses made for an infant?!)  Yet, my son can see quite well only because of modern medical science; he had surgery on his eyes at 7 days old, and there was only 2 pediatric ophthalmologists with experience in operating on an infant within 300 miles of my home; one was in Chicago, the other was (conveniently) at Cincinnati Childrens' Hospital.  That guy has a serious God complex, but deserves every penny I have ever paid him.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #75 on: January 19, 2016, 08:29:02 PM »
Here's another way in which "warmer is better" is BS:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10716530/zika-virus-disease?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=monday

I just got around to reading this, and the point is a valid one.  Worse yet, I can think of several more tropical diseases that are much more dangerous than the Zika virus.  And then there are Africanized honey bees and their ever northward growing range.  Still, this doesn't alter my argument; humanity will continue to survive and adapt, even when some number of individual humans do not.  It may be harsh, but that is how the real world works.

But much easier to shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, that's the way it is," when you and yours are not directly concerned. Yes, humanity will probably survive and adapt.  But a lot of misery lies down that path of complacency, which could be avoided or at least mitigated if the response of so many in rich areas that won't be the first to suffer Had a little more humanity.

Maybe it could be avoided, maybe it could not.  You seem to believe that mitigation of that outcome is probable; but that is not a common view from either side of this debate.  If we take the climate summit results recently out of Paris, the very best we can hope for is about a half a degree Celsius of mitigation over the next century; and even that would come at great economic cost.  A cost that, most likely, will have the greatest impact on the lives of the world's poorest people; not the middle class & higher among the wealthiest nations.  So suffering may not be avoidable, and by diversion of the capital of societies on the hopes of climate change mitigation might yet end up causing equal or greater suffering via another vector of poverty.  Would our efforts & wealth be better spent figuring out how to grow different crops better suited to climate changes in particular regions?  Or perhaps (gasp!) genetic modifications of crops to make them more resilient?  What about research into cheaper/more effective treatments for the most common causes of childhood death in tropical regions; such as malaria or diarrhea?  Or even just premature birth?

http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/causes/en/

There is nothing that you could hope to accomplish via government action that will not have negative, and often unforeseen, impacts in some other area of society.  That is a simple fact of economics.

Quote
  You  might feel different about whether this was a pressing concern if you lived in Brazil and your wife was currently pregnant.

My wife's family has a genetic history of congenital blindness; and my own family has a history of congenital kidney disease that leads to early death.  The increased risk of birth defects due to the Zita virus is far & away from the most pressing of medical risks in pregnecy, and not a rational argument for drastically altering the fossil fueled nature of our energy infrastructure in the near term.

BTW, my son was born without irides.  None at all.  He can't physically moderate his own light intake, nor adjust to glare.  He wears self-tinting sunglasses all of the time to adapt, and wore infant sized sunglasses from 3 months on up. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to get sunglasses made for an infant?!)  Yet, my son can see quite well only because of modern medical science; he had surgery on his eyes at 7 days old, and there was only 2 pediatric ophthalmologists with experience in operating on an infant within 300 miles of my home; one was in Chicago, the other was (conveniently) at Cincinnati Childrens' Hospital.  That guy has a serious God complex, but deserves every penny I have ever paid him.

As to your first remarks: I can't think why we wouldn't do both mitigation and also research into better crops, including genetically modified crops, etc.  mitigation, at this point, is also going to have to involve figuring out how to transplant large groups of people, even entire cities, to different locations.

As to your second set of remarks... I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Do we only pursue treatments/solutions for one disease at a time?

ETA: you know what, answer that question if you want. But I'm done here. At least you were willing to admit that climate change might have even one negative effect. But you don't really seem to care, so whatever. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will keep discussing this with you. It's not necessary for me to be involved. 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 08:32:38 PM by Kris »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #76 on: January 19, 2016, 09:34:27 PM »

As to your first remarks: I can't think why we wouldn't do both mitigation and also research into better crops, including genetically modified crops, etc.  mitigation, at this point, is also going to have to involve figuring out how to transplant large groups of people, even entire cities, to different locations.

The largest impediment to doing both would be a lack of funds.  The greatest likely cause of a lack of funds for these projects would be the diversion of capital by political intervention. I have a greater faith that the free market will do a better job at adaption & mitigation of any common problem; and you seem to have an unshakable faith in government agencies' abilities to deliver on their promises, despite most of history.
Quote

As to your second set of remarks... I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Do we only pursue treatments/solutions for one disease at a time?
Wrong question.  The right question would be, "who decides what problems we commit time/money/resources toward solving? And who decides which potential solutions we should pursue?"  A local solution can be just as effective as a global one, just allow the decisions to remain as local as possible.  No international treaty is likely to solve any real problems in this field.

Quote
ETA: you know what, answer that question if you want. But I'm done here. At least you were willing to admit that climate change might have even one negative effect.
Not remotely even the first time, even with yourself, Kris; but you do have a convenient memory.

Quote
But you don't really seem to care, so whatever. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will keep discussing this with you. It's not necessary for me to be involved.

It never was, and I didn't expect you to participate as long as you did, Kris.  You have a habit of dropping out of conversations whenever your opposition actually starts to get you to think difficult thoughts about what you truly know about your position.  I suspect that my rational has started to make you upset, which is a common side effect of cognitive dissonance.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2016, 11:10:45 PM »
The largest impediment to doing both would be a lack of funds.  The greatest likely cause of a lack of funds for these projects would be the diversion of capital by political intervention. I have a greater faith that the free market will do a better job at adaption & mitigation of any common problem; and you seem to have an unshakable faith in government agencies' abilities to deliver on their promises, despite most of history.
The only problem with this idea is that the "free markets" have a history of privatizing the profit and socializing the costs.

If the costs are going to be socialized anyway, and they surely are by any means possible as history has shown time and time again, then why should we let the free markets reap profits at the expense of society?  Why not simply socialize the cost up front through government intervention?

And mind you, the government isn't trying to take over any actual production or business or anything of that sort.  Governments are simply trying to incentivize the free market to come up with a solution now rather than in a couple of hundred years.  We've known about this problem for around 50 years so far and the free market hasn't done anything about it yet.  If the free market is the end all and be all of finding a solution then it shouldn't really be a problem.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2016, 01:30:10 AM »
The largest impediment to doing both would be a lack of funds.  The greatest likely cause of a lack of funds for these projects would be the diversion of capital by political intervention. I have a greater faith that the free market will do a better job at adaption & mitigation of any common problem; and you seem to have an unshakable faith in government agencies' abilities to deliver on their promises, despite most of history.
The only problem with this idea is that the "free markets" have a history of privatizing the profit and socializing the costs.

If the costs are going to be socialized anyway, and they surely are by any means possible as history has shown time and time again, then why should we let the free markets reap profits at the expense of society?  Why not simply socialize the cost up front through government intervention?
For starters, because that is incredibly inefficient, diverting capital towards administration and bureaucracy; and the longer the term period we are considering, the worse the bureaucracy overhead becomes.  Free markets might reap profits, and yes, sometimes at the expense of society generally; yet for all it's faults, it's the same economic system that begot the Industrial Revolution to begin with, and has shaped every Western nation.  You frequent a Internet forum that focuses upon the concept of middle class people retiring early, yet without those same free markets dominating for over a century prior to your birth, you would have no class mobility to speak of, much less the ability to retire ever.  The leaders of governments, no matter how intelligent, cannot predict what the future holds any better than anyone else, and can't reasonably know the wisest path to pursue towards the end of solving any problem with a time horizon beyond the election cycle.  The free markets have produced, at great expense to society; heart surgery, plastics, most antibiotics, electric lighting, refrigerators, automatic washing machines, consumer vacuum cleaners, Internet access to every non-government affiliated person that has ever used it, all consumer electronics (including smartphones)...the list is endless.  The great failure of central planning is that no central planner can predict the 'next big thing' to reshape how societies do things.  If there is one, or many, cost effective solutions to climate change it will not be a government agency that discovers it.
Quote

And mind you, the government isn't trying to take over any actual production or business or anything of that sort.  Governments are simply trying to incentivize the free market to come up with a solution now rather than in a couple of hundred years.
Bullsh*t, governments around the world are using climate change as a general crisis to justify regulatory control of free markets, for their own political ends.  And even if their motives were universally pure, governments don't know how to incentivize a free market to do anything better than it already does, or would anyway in due time.
Quote
We've known about this problem for around 50 years so far and the free market hasn't done anything about it yet.  If the free market is the end all and be all of finding a solution then it shouldn't really be a problem.
Is that so? There was no such thing as energy efficiency improvements before government intervention?  No such thing as mass produced photovolitic panels before government subsidies?  No consumer desire to move away from home heating with coal before protests against coal mining?  Where did you get this idea from?  Governments respond to public desires, that is how they get elected to begin with.  This does not mean that the impetus doesn't exist for these changes, if they are the most desirable outcomes in the long run, that is what the free markets will produce; regardless of government subsidies & incentives.  Domestic solar power is finally finding it's market, because costs of production have steadily been dropping for decades, not because of any government driving force towards this end.  Solar power will continue to gain market share for the same reasons, no matter the claims of politicos and 'watermelons' after the fact.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2016, 03:51:51 AM »
For starters, because that is incredibly inefficient, diverting capital towards administration and bureaucracy; and the longer the term period we are considering, the worse the bureaucracy overhead becomes.
No need for more bureaucracy, the tax system is already in place.  Simply tax the shit out of any company that doesn't want to use clean energy and be done with it.  Pretty soon we will have the money to clean up the mess those companies are making.  If the companies try to raise prices to pass on the cost to consumers the vaunted powers of the "free market" will ensure they either go out of business, and thus stop contributing to the problem, or remain in business but the true cost of the business will be paid for through their taxes.  Win-win.

Now, that's just an example and I'm not actually advocating that as the best way of doing things.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.  I'm simply showing that significantly more bureaucracy is not needed.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Free markets might reap profits, and yes, sometimes at the expense of society generally; yet for all it's faults, it's the same economic system that begot the Industrial Revolution to begin with, and has shaped every Western nation.  You frequent a Internet forum that focuses upon the concept of middle class people retiring early, yet without those same free markets dominating for over a century prior to your birth, you would have no class mobility to speak of, much less the ability to retire ever.  The leaders of governments, no matter how intelligent, cannot predict what the future holds any better than anyone else, and can't reasonably know the wisest path to pursue towards the end of solving any problem with a time horizon beyond the election cycle.  The free markets have produced, at great expense to society; heart surgery, plastics, most antibiotics, electric lighting, refrigerators, automatic washing machines, consumer vacuum cleaners, Internet access to every non-government affiliated person that has ever used it, all consumer electronics (including smartphones)...the list is endless.  The great failure of central planning is that no central planner can predict the 'next big thing' to reshape how societies do things.  If there is one, or many, cost effective solutions to climate change it will not be a government agency that discovers it.
I'm not against the free market so please don't try to imply my comments meant that.

Yes the markets have given us all those things.  They have also left society to pick up a huge portion of the true cost of those things.  Those costs are primarily in the form of environmental damage that is now causing the predicament we find ourselves in.  That is a failing of the free market system and society in general for allowing it to happen.

And your last sentence is opinion only.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Bullsh*t, governments around the world are using climate change as a general crisis to justify regulatory control of free markets, for their own political ends.  And even if their motives were universally pure, governments don't know how to incentivize a free market to do anything better than it already does, or would anyway in due time.
Opinion only.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Is that so? There was no such thing as energy efficiency improvements before government intervention?  No such thing as mass produced photovolitic panels before government subsidies?  No consumer desire to move away from home heating with coal before protests against coal mining?  Where did you get this idea from?  Governments respond to public desires, that is how they get elected to begin with.  This does not mean that the impetus doesn't exist for these changes, if they are the most desirable outcomes in the long run, that is what the free markets will produce; regardless of government subsidies & incentives.  Domestic solar power is finally finding it's market, because costs of production have steadily been dropping for decades, not because of any government driving force towards this end.  Solar power will continue to gain market share for the same reasons, no matter the claims of politicos and 'watermelons' after the fact.
Is the problem worse or better than it was 50 years ago?  Is it getting better or is it getting worse?

The consensus among experts not paid by oil companies is that the situation is worse and is getting worse.

If your point is the free markets have found a way to make money from the problem then I would agree.  If you are suggesting the free market has actually improved the situation then I will go with the experts and respectfully disagree with you.

Anyways, have fun with the discussion.  I'm back to lurking now.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2016, 04:59:00 AM »

As for the video... Are you asking me to watch it because you think I have never actually heard the arguments against the dangers of climate change?

Nope. Proof enough you couldn't spend 4 minutes.

Omg, give me a break. I scrolled through it, but it isn't anything I haven't heard before. Believe me, I've spent a lot more than four minutes of my life reading articles on opposing views regarding climate change.

Is that so?  So you already knew that we are in an inter-glaciation period, but still in an ice age?  Did you know that the poles have been ice free 4 times that we know of, and none of them managed to sterilize the planet?  Did you know that the time of the Roman age was warmer than today, or that the Medieval Warm Period might have been also?  I'd find that impressive, since that would make you a very rare advocate.

All of this is part of the children's school curriculum in my country. You can also ask my 9-year old to give you an introduction to the Milankovich cycles and the small ice age that lasted until 1850. Any of the scientists you are debating here of course know all this.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
  • Age: 37
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2016, 05:38:44 AM »
Yeah, inept government only went to the moon, invented the Internet, built much of the world's infrastructure, gave us sanitation and reliable clean drinking water.

What did the Romans ever do for us..

So what? All of those things are far easier to do than changing the weather.

Not really. Fixing the problem is simple—we know exactly how to do it. Creating an ecosystem whereby the population at large makes the right decisions is more difficult. Luckily, this is the type of problem that governments have been successfully tackling for thousands of years. Governments have disincentivized smoking, driving without a seatbelt, and speeding via various means (e.g., taxes, education, and fines) quite successfully. These restrictions have been beneficial for humanity at large. I have a high degree of confidence that governments across the world can successfully disincentivize activities known to be harmful to the environment enough to, as you so eloquently put it, "change the weather".

Are you at all worried about the government encroaching on your personal liberty/freedom? You may think the above mentioned things have been for the benefit of humanity but has an entity ever decided that somthing you do, and fully understand the risks of, is not in your best interest or in the interest of humanity?

Sugary drinks over 16oz come to mind.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2016, 06:08:49 AM »
The reason we're having this conversation is that it's so easy to change the weather.

Really? When did man ever change the weather?

Can you provide a real, proven example that doesn't involve a computer model guessing at what "might" happen 50 years from now?

Sure.

There's something called the 'urban heat island effect' that is a measurable and significant increase in temperature within large cities.  The temperature changes are measurable directly.  Temperature variations also cause changes to local wind patterns and development of fog and clouds.

I'm talking about actually changing the weather, not creating a local warm spot due to construction. Big difference.

However, since you brought up the urban heat island effect, are you aware that many of the official temperature stations that were once isolated in open areas are now located near man-made heat sources such as AC vents, or asphalt parking lots due to development? That's one reason why "official" temperature records don't tell the whole story.

You either don't appear to understand what you originally asked, or are deliberately moving the goalposts in an attempt to be obtuse.

Weather (noun) - the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

The urban heat island effect changes the atmosphere at a particular place with regards to heat, dryness, wind, and rain.  Therefore it is absolute and directly measurable proof that mankind has changed the weather.

As far as the heat island effect on official measurements . . . this has been studied and accounted for.  https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2-2.html

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2016, 12:47:33 PM »
For starters, because that is incredibly inefficient, diverting capital towards administration and bureaucracy; and the longer the term period we are considering, the worse the bureaucracy overhead becomes.
No need for more bureaucracy, the tax system is already in place.
Taxes are the health of bureaucracy.  Greater taxation leads to growth in bureaucracy. It has always been thus.
Quote

Quote from: MoonShadow
Free markets might reap profits, and yes, sometimes at the expense of society generally; yet for all it's faults, it's the same economic system that begot the Industrial Revolution to begin with, and has shaped every Western nation.  You frequent a Internet forum that focuses upon the concept of middle class people retiring early, yet without those same free markets dominating for over a century prior to your birth, you would have no class mobility to speak of, much less the ability to retire ever.  The leaders of governments, no matter how intelligent, cannot predict what the future holds any better than anyone else, and can't reasonably know the wisest path to pursue towards the end of solving any problem with a time horizon beyond the election cycle.  The free markets have produced, at great expense to society; heart surgery, plastics, most antibiotics, electric lighting, refrigerators, automatic washing machines, consumer vacuum cleaners, Internet access to every non-government affiliated person that has ever used it, all consumer electronics (including smartphones)...the list is endless.  The great failure of central planning is that no central planner can predict the 'next big thing' to reshape how societies do things.  If there is one, or many, cost effective solutions to climate change it will not be a government agency that discovers it.
I'm not against the free market so please don't try to imply my comments meant that.

Yes the markets have given us all those things.  They have also left society to pick up a huge portion of the true cost of those things.  Those costs are primarily in the form of environmental damage that is now causing the predicament we find ourselves in.  That is a failing of the free market system and society in general for allowing it to happen.

And your last sentence is opinion only.
An opinion well informed by history.
Quote
Quote from: MoonShadow
Bullsh*t, governments around the world are using climate change as a general crisis to justify regulatory control of free markets, for their own political ends.  And even if their motives were universally pure, governments don't know how to incentivize a free market to do anything better than it already does, or would anyway in due time.
Opinion only.
See above
Quote
Quote from: MoonShadow
Is that so? There was no such thing as energy efficiency improvements before government intervention?  No such thing as mass produced photovolitic panels before government subsidies?  No consumer desire to move away from home heating with coal before protests against coal mining?  Where did you get this idea from?  Governments respond to public desires, that is how they get elected to begin with.  This does not mean that the impetus doesn't exist for these changes, if they are the most desirable outcomes in the long run, that is what the free markets will produce; regardless of government subsidies & incentives.  Domestic solar power is finally finding it's market, because costs of production have steadily been dropping for decades, not because of any government driving force towards this end.  Solar power will continue to gain market share for the same reasons, no matter the claims of politicos and 'watermelons' after the fact.
Is the problem worse or better than it was 50 years ago?  Is it getting better or is it getting worse?
Energy efficiency improvements in manufacturing, resource management, construction, mining, transportation, every consumer product that uses energy in any significant fashion, interior climate control and electronics.  Sure, some governments passed laws compelling some of these efficiency improvements (but certainly not all), yet there is zero evidence that the free market wouldn't have arrived to the same end eventually, wherever possible.  There is much evidence that efficiency improvements had already begun in many of these fields before government mandates anyway.

So improvements in some areas, not in others.  It's a mixed bag.
Quote

The consensus among experts not paid by oil companies is that the situation is worse and is getting worse.


Consensus is not science any more than weather is not climate.

Quote

If your point is the free markets have found a way to make money from the problem then I would agree.  If you are suggesting the free market has actually improved the situation then I will go with the experts and respectfully disagree with you.

My point is that you know what to expect from the free market; individual players are involved primarily for their own benefit, but the player that invents/discovers a new way to power homes carbon free for half the cost of current photovoltaics benefits all of society by his efforts to benefit himself.  Government players & advocates are also self-interested, but often present their actions as altruistic at root.  So you can see how individuals working in the free market can do things that are counter to society at large, and fault the collection of market players for the actions of a minority; but you implicitly grant government players the benefit of the doubt, when you have plenty of historical evidence that politicos are no less out for themselves than their private sector counterparts.  Why is that?  Do you actually have any evidence that politicos are better at predicting the outcomes of their policies than anyone else?  If so, I'd very much love to see that data.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2016, 02:23:02 PM »

Wrong question.  The right question would be, "who decides what problems we commit time/money/resources toward solving? And who decides which potential solutions we should pursue?"  A local solution can be just as effective as a global one, just allow the decisions to remain as local as possible.  No international treaty is likely to solve any real problems in this field.

Here is a recent post from someone working on a real solution, at least for some people. I have a lot of respect for this guy, and in what he is trying to do; even though he is an apocalyptic climate doomer who believes anyone who thinks he is over the top deserves a smack upside the head.  And before anyone asks; no, I am not who he is referring to in that paragraph, because I long ago gave up on trying to reason with him on climate change.

http://quidnon.blogspot.com/2016/01/sailing-through-meltwater-pulse.html

One thing others might notice by reading his works, his worldview is basicly that the East coast of the US is the real United States, and the fact that marinas around the Great Lakes & all the way down the Mississippi & Ohio rivers would be fine really isn't worthy of mention.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #85 on: January 20, 2016, 04:09:57 PM »
As far as the heat island effect on official measurements . . . this has been studied and accounted for.  https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2-2.html

I'm skeptical of claims made by an organization that has a one-sided agenda, which is to study the effects of man-made climate change, and man made climate change only. Natural variation, the sun, tides, jet stream, rainfall, cloud cover, etc., are not studied by the IPCC, and therefore, any claims they make must be looked at with that in mind.

If man-made climate change was shown not to be the threat they claim, their funding would evaporate and they would all be out of work.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #86 on: January 20, 2016, 04:52:51 PM »
I'm skeptical of claims made by an organization that has a one-sided agenda, which is to study the effects of man-made climate change, and man made climate change only. Natural variation, the sun, tides, jet stream, rainfall, cloud cover, etc., are not studied by the IPCC, and therefore, any claims they make must be looked at with that in mind.


This is factually incorrect. Natural variation is a part of climate science and something that is considered. It is a factor, it just isn't the biggest lever at present.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #87 on: January 20, 2016, 06:47:56 PM »
I find the choice between "do nothing and let the chips fall where they may" supposed free market solution and a hypothetical top-down government action to be a false choice. It is a false choice for several reasons:
1. pure free markets simply do not exist. Free markets are possible because we have rule of law to enforce things like contracts, and equal rules for companies to meet for environmental regulations. A level playing field is the closest we get to the hypothetical free market, and even that may be a stretch.
2. The assumption built into the concept of the free market is that entities are rational actors. This has been shown to be false, or the framework for a "good choice" may in fact simply externalize their downsides.
3. We have agency to change the rules and boundary conditions for our markets (see 1 above). For example, we can propose a rule that caps carbon emissions and allow market forces to decide the best way to achieve that goal and incentivize innovation for novel solutions.

There is a long history of recognizing society-level problems and disallowing those behaviors. Regulations can shape the market, but they are not necessarily the tyranny that they are being made out to be in some of the post above.

But, let's get specific and look at how these rules are developed and implemented in the real world instead of cartoon Adam Smiths vs cartoon Governments. It so happens that greenhouse gas emissions regulations are currently being developed here in Washington State. (fair notice: I am working on projects directly affected by this potential legislation and working with clients on how to respond to it). Just this afternoon a clearly written description of the proposed rule and process came across my desk, and is linked below. Note how the rule reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and leaves room for innovation and market forces to work out the how.
http://www.klgateshub.com/details/?pub=Washington-State-Department-of-Ecology-Proposes-GHG-Limits-in-Clean-Air-Rule-01-20-2016


And yes, this will drive up the cost of some things. We are just realizing the actual cost of our actions instead of externalizing that cost to someone in another country or state, or your great grandchildren who would have to pay to move their city up the hill, or deal with chronic drought and crop failure (the more pressing problem). I think that that is not so much somebody picking our pocket as being fair.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2016, 06:50:33 PM by Glenstache »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2016, 07:16:25 PM »
That link states:

"Part of the challenge is that, to a large extent, “carbon pollution” is a global concern related to the global concentration of GHG in the atmosphere"

However, CO2 is not carbon and it's not pollution. It's an essential trace gas that is required for life on Earth to exist. All the new law does is implement a carbon tax based on the old "we're saving the planet" lie. As has been stated several times already, it's all about the money. Only the willfully blind seem unable to grasp this.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2016, 07:33:16 PM »
I find the choice between "do nothing and let the chips fall where they may" supposed free market solution and a hypothetical top-down government action to be a false choice. It is a false choice for several reasons:

It is a false choice, but humans have to simplify issues to even discuss them in a forum like this. I am aware that no true free market exists, I can only presume that you also know that no perfect regulatory policy exists as well.  No one has ever responded to my original point, that (likewise) the idea that either AGW is correct and we must stop CO2 emissions 10 years ago or we all drown or starve versus AGW is a hoax with no scientific basis is also a false choice.  There are many subtle perspectives along that continuum.  I can literally stand in the middle and see the perspectives (and biases) on both extremes.  What I have a big problem with is that policy is being made from the perspective of one of these extremes, while the merits of the oppositional arguments are ignored simply because they are extreme.  This is nonsensical from a public policy perspective, even if it wasn't all but certain to be catastrophic from an economic perspective. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2016, 11:29:19 PM »
This thread reminds me of why humanity is doomed.

Hint: it's not climate change.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #92 on: January 21, 2016, 12:31:43 AM »
This thread reminds me of why humanity is doomed.

Hint: it's not climate change.

At least we have that, Sol.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8822
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #93 on: January 21, 2016, 02:28:27 AM »
Something which intrigues me about climate change discussions is the limited imagination as to what might happen to the weather. There seem to be only two main modes of thought -

1.  The climate won't change.
2.  The climate won't change but will move (ie current weather patterns will move to new locations).

I suspect that the real problem is that our current climate will destabilise.  There won't be patterns of weather that we can recognise and rely on anywhere in the world.  There won't be some climatic "safe haven" further away from the equator and the sea where the lucky amongst us can take refuge and build walls to keep out the unlucky billions.   There won't be reliable growing patterns for agricultural crops.

I think I'm probably old enough, rich enough and in a safe enough geographical location to miss the worst of it.   But I try to minimise my footprint on the earth so as not to feel too guilty about what we are probably leaving behind.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #94 on: January 21, 2016, 06:08:08 AM »
That link states:

"Part of the challenge is that, to a large extent, “carbon pollution” is a global concern related to the global concentration of GHG in the atmosphere"

However, CO2 is not carbon and it's not pollution. It's an essential trace gas that is required for life on Earth to exist. All the new law does is implement a carbon tax based on the old "we're saving the planet" lie. As has been stated several times already, it's all about the money. Only the willfully blind seem unable to grasp this.

You are either showing a total lack of understanding of the words that you use, or are purposely attempting to mislead people for the second time in this thread.  Hopefully it is the former, as this can be cured by education.

Pollution (noun) - the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

Anything at all that has harmful effects and is introduced to the environment is pollution.  If I decided to pump millions of gallons of water into the desert, that would be pollution . . . because the millions of gallons of water would have a serious negative consequence for all the life adapted to that environment.  The fact that water is necessary for life on Earth is irrelevant to it being a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is carbon bonded with two oxygen molecules.  It's commonly shortened to 'carbon' when discussing climate change for ease of use.  As you have (hopefully) now learned from the definition of given above, it is also a pollutant.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 06:45:00 AM by GuitarStv »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM »
Hi, MoonShadow!

The reason why I hadn't posted in this thread (until now) is that everybody else was doing such a good job of making all the same arguments I would have made. Thanks, everybody!

This point, however, has not yet been addressed as far as I know:

But much easier to shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, that's the way it is," when you and yours are not directly concerned. Yes, humanity will probably survive and adapt.  But a lot of misery lies down that path of complacency, which could be avoided or at least mitigated if the response of so many in rich areas that won't be the first to suffer Had a little more humanity.

Maybe it could be avoided, maybe it could not.  You seem to believe that mitigation of that outcome is probable; but that is not a common view from either side of this debate.  If we take the climate summit results recently out of Paris, the very best we can hope for is about a half a degree Celsius of mitigation over the next century; and even that would come at great economic cost.  A cost that, most likely, will have the greatest impact on the lives of the world's poorest people; not the middle class & higher among the wealthiest nations. So suffering may not be avoidable, and by diversion of the capital of societies on the hopes of climate change mitigation might yet end up causing equal or greater suffering via another vector of poverty.  Would our efforts & wealth be better spent figuring out how to grow different crops better suited to climate changes in particular regions?  Or perhaps (gasp!) genetic modifications of crops to make them more resilient?  What about research into cheaper/more effective treatments for the most common causes of childhood death in tropical regions; such as malaria or diarrhea?  Or even just premature birth?

You're arguing that the cost of mitigating climate change will have the greatest [negative] impact on the world's poorest people. But I'm sure at some point earlier it was pointed out that the cost of failing to mitigate climate change will also have the greatest [negative] impact on the world's poorest people.

In fact, failing to mitigate would certainly have a worse impact than mitigating would, in part because researching the technology to do so (and paying for that research) is done by wealthy countries, and in part because things like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement reduce wealthy countries' economic comparative advantage by setting stricter pollution targets (in addition to the explicit transfers of wealth to help poorer countries increase their sustainability). As far as transfers of wealth go, this one is relatively legitimate and acceptable -- after all, wealthy countries were responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions (and other pollution) produced up to this point, so it's only fair that we are mostly responsible for paying to clean it up.

Also, you seem to think that spending money on some types of research (e.g. increasing crop yields and reducing disease) is valid but that spending on other types of research (e.g. sustainable energy) is not, but have utterly failed to give any reasonable justification for why. It strongly gives the impression that you just hate anything that might affect you and prefer that the issue be addressed in ways that are only "somebody else's problem." You also exhibit the false dichotomy fallacy, where you pretend that we have to choose what to research  -- we have plenty of money to do both; the only shortage is in the will (namely, the will of you and people like you) to allocate said money to it (which implies that your claim that the situation is inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecy).



That link states:

"Part of the challenge is that, to a large extent, “carbon pollution” is a global concern related to the global concentration of GHG in the atmosphere"

However, CO2 is not carbon and it's not pollution. It's an essential trace gas that is required for life on Earth to exist. All the new law does is implement a carbon tax based on the old "we're saving the planet" lie. As has been stated several times already, it's all about the money. Only the willfully blind seem unable to grasp this.

First, CO2 absolutely is carbon -- precisely, 27.3% by weight.

Second, excess CO2 absolutely is pollution, because pollution is defined as a "harmful substance introduced into the environment" and excess CO2 is harmful. It's a definition that depends on circumstance, not the intrinsic properties of any particular substance itself -- for example, even oxygen is pollution from the perspective of anaerobic archaebacteria, and things normally considered to be pollutants stop being so when removed from an inappropriate environment in favor of an appropriate one (e.g. nuclear waste would not "pollute" Yucca Mountain, because that's where it belongs).



The other point that I'd like to make is regarding the claim that pollution controls infringe on the "free market."

NO!

What some people here are calling the "free market" is actually an unfree market that subsidizes polluters by forcing the rest of us to bear the externalized cost of their pollution. In contrast, things like cap-and-trade create a market that is actually closer to the free-market ideal than the one we have now!

I have no interest in unfairly burdening anyone with excessive regulation; I simply wish to end the massive subsidies that we give to the fossil fuel industry and other polluters in order to protect the commons.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #96 on: January 21, 2016, 02:52:12 PM »
Hi, MoonShadow!

The reason why I hadn't posted in this thread (until now) is that everybody else was doing such a good job of making all the same arguments I would have made. Thanks, everybody!

This point, however, has not yet been addressed as far as I know:

But much easier to shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, that's the way it is," when you and yours are not directly concerned. Yes, humanity will probably survive and adapt.  But a lot of misery lies down that path of complacency, which could be avoided or at least mitigated if the response of so many in rich areas that won't be the first to suffer Had a little more humanity.

Maybe it could be avoided, maybe it could not.  You seem to believe that mitigation of that outcome is probable; but that is not a common view from either side of this debate.  If we take the climate summit results recently out of Paris, the very best we can hope for is about a half a degree Celsius of mitigation over the next century; and even that would come at great economic cost.  A cost that, most likely, will have the greatest impact on the lives of the world's poorest people; not the middle class & higher among the wealthiest nations. So suffering may not be avoidable, and by diversion of the capital of societies on the hopes of climate change mitigation might yet end up causing equal or greater suffering via another vector of poverty.  Would our efforts & wealth be better spent figuring out how to grow different crops better suited to climate changes in particular regions?  Or perhaps (gasp!) genetic modifications of crops to make them more resilient?  What about research into cheaper/more effective treatments for the most common causes of childhood death in tropical regions; such as malaria or diarrhea?  Or even just premature birth?

You're arguing that the cost of mitigating climate change will have the greatest [negative] impact on the world's poorest people. But I'm sure at some point earlier it was pointed out that the cost of failing to mitigate climate change will also have the greatest [negative] impact on the world's poorest people.


I don't think that was brought up in this thread, but I am aware of it. I mentioned it the way I did because there is a bit of a myth that, if we can just get rich people to pay the costs of shifting away from a carbon based energy economy, then the impact upon the world's poorest would be minimized.  This part is the falsehood. The wealthy among modern nations are unlikely to feel the brunt of the economic costs of a forced shift towards carbon-free energy; that also will most likely be shouldered by the poorest, who typically spend 25% or more of their income/labor on energy sources, even though they typically use very little on a per capita basis.

Quote
In fact, failing to mitigate would certainly have a worse impact than mitigating would,

This is a tell. There is no certainty of any outcome. That is part of my complaint.
Quote

 in part because researching the technology to do so (and paying for that research) is done by wealthy countries,
Which will occur anyway, via the free market forces, with much less economic harm on a longer, more natural, timeline. Hubbert's Peak Theory alone guarantees that wealthy nations will commit resources towards further efficiency gains (LED lighting, high-efficiency refrigeration compressors, etc) and alternative energy sources for intermittent uses.  The current state of the cost of oil is only a temporary 'pause' in the overall trend. (see what I did there?) I have an experimental solar photovoltaic controller sitting on my desk right know, that is designed to run a typical household refrigerator directly from a single 200w photovoltaic panel, and then smoothly switch from the panel to household AC as the sun sets, synching the AC output of the inverter to the grid so that the fridge never sees a break in the cycle power. It's slick, patented & I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement just for the option of paying $300 for it.  It only requires a 35 amp-hour battery to handle the transitions smoothly, which is where the cost savings come long term, because lead-acid batteries are expensive and don't last nearly as long as the panels themselves do.
Quote

 and in part because things like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement reduce wealthy countries' economic comparative advantage by setting stricter pollution targets (in addition to the explicit transfers of wealth to help poorer countries increase their sustainability).
That's not what happened, and I think you know it. The Kyoto Protocol was a barely veiled attempt to impose an international trade regime, which fortunately turned out to be a failed attempt.  The Paris Agreement isn't even that much, because it's not binding so that it wouldn't have to get past the US Senate as an international treaty.  It's toothless, and no one with any understanding believes for a moment that China, India or most of the countries in Africa will do any more than gesture toward abiding by it.  Even if the Paris Agreement had any useful force, the total impact over the next 100 years would be to reduce the global average climate increase by about three-fifths of a degree Celsius. Far and away not worth the economic suffering such an agreement would be bound to cause just over the next decade, much less the whole century.
Quote

 As far as transfers of wealth go, this one is relatively legitimate and acceptable -- after all, wealthy countries were responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions (and other pollution) produced up to this point, so it's only fair that we are mostly responsible for paying to clean it up.
First off, the Paris Agreement isn't about "other pollution", it's about carbon dioxide emissions.  And as Music Lover pointed out, CO2 is plant food.  There have been numerous studies that show that the pre-industrial atmostpheric levels of CO2 were at barely above starvation levels, and that all agricultural crops' growth rate, yield & resistance towards drought all improve significantly with a doubling of that concentration level.  Since most of these very poor nations have agriculturally based societies, many of them are benefited by CO2 emissions from industrial nations, so long as they are not also affected by other forms of pollution.   Furthermore, most Industrialized nations have been helping to "clean up" those CO2 emissions, if only accidentally.  The new growth forest cover across the New England states should be famous; and my home state of Kentucky was once, and is almost again, a continuous temperate forest from border to border.  This is an unintended consequence of transitioning from a pre-industrial society that heats with wood, to one that heats with natural gas, propane and high-efficiency electric heat pumps (coal, water power, etc).  There is one mitigating factor right there.
Quote

Also, you seem to think that spending money on some types of research (e.g. increasing crop yields and reducing disease) is valid but that spending on other types of research (e.g. sustainable energy) is not, but have utterly failed to give any reasonable justification for why.
You have misunderstood.  A free market demand for research is valid, taxing others to pay for (often pie-in-the-sky) government research is (generally) not. Government funded research has netted mankind very little for the cost, but at least we got nuclear weapons & Tang.

Quote

 It strongly gives the impression that you just hate anything that might affect you and prefer that the issue be addressed in ways that are only "somebody else's problem."

You just got started here, and already are resorting to the hateful accusations.  This is a debate. Your impressions of personalities are irrelevant.
Quote

You also exhibit the false dichotomy fallacy, where you pretend that we have to choose what to research
No I don't...
Quote
-- we have plenty of money to do both;
...and no we don't!  By definition, resources are always scarce!  The 'opportunity cost' alone of diversion of resources toward any new government bureaucracy, even one with a small chance of benefit, is incalculable.  And I mean that it's literally incalculable, because we can't know what we will lose out on over the next several decades because of the diversion of resources.

Quote
the only shortage is in the will (namely, the will of you and people like you) to allocate said money to it (which implies that your claim that the situation is inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecy).
I imply no such thing.  That is what the climate doomers imply, I was just summarizing the position.  Perhaps you should go back and try to familiarize
 yourself with my statements, and argue against those, not your interpretation of what I intended to say.

Quote
I have no interest in unfairly burdening anyone with excessive regulation; I simply wish to end the massive subsidies that we give to the fossil fuel industry and other polluters in order to protect the commons.

Okay.  So advocate for the end of the subsidies.  I have no objection there.  But, again, that's not what either Kyoto nor the Paris Agreement even pretends to accomplish.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #97 on: January 21, 2016, 03:00:05 PM »
As a courtesy, please respond to different posters with separate posts of your own. These multiple quoted posts become large enough without trying to consolidate arguments.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #98 on: January 21, 2016, 03:29:59 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

I suppose there'll still be people trying to argue the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

I get the fact that many skeptics believe climate change is down to natural variation and humans have minimal impact.

What is fundamentally missed is that natural variation occurs over thousands of years. We are seeing changes happen in decades...

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Age: 37
  • Location: RVA
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #99 on: January 21, 2016, 03:41:25 PM »
Quote from: MoonShadow
You have misunderstood.  A free market demand for research is valid, taxing others to pay for (often pie-in-the-sky) government research is (generally) not. Government funded research has netted mankind very little for the cost, but at least we got nuclear weapons & Tang.

And the interstate system, space travel, water purification, the internet, the national weather service, and nuclear magnetic resonance machines. You're right. Government research is useless!

Look, the market is not 100% efficient. Many businesses profit by socializing its real expenses. Exxon Mobile's gasoline and diesel fuel is subsidized by every person suffering from asthma due to transportation emissions. Their profits are subsidized by the public dealing with fewer fish, damaged buildings, and coral reef destruction from acid rain. One of the most important tenets of government is to protect the public from "smart for one, dumb for all" activities.

Quote from: Pooplips
Are you at all worried about the government encroaching on your personal liberty/freedom? You may think the above mentioned things have been for the benefit of humanity but has an entity ever decided that somthing you do, and fully understand the risks of, is not in your best interest or in the interest of humanity?

Sugary drinks over 16oz come to mind.

Of course this is a gradient. I'm not advocating for government controlling every aspect of your life, just as (I assume) you're not advocating for 100% deregulation. Balance is paramount.

No man is an island. A lot of behaviors (like drinking 16oz sodas) are actively harmful to society at large. Sometimes it is beneficial for government to interject.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 03:48:36 PM by the_gastropod »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!