US Climate Change Policy

[AlexMar]

I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?

-W

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Well, in the 1600s context of Pascal it was pretty much Catholicism or nothing. But, this is a nitpick that diverts from the fact that we are not looking at infinite climate scenarios.

Back on topic, I think this would be an example of the last option in the poll. I'd wager (see what I did there?) that  this thread is unlikely to convert AlexMar's point of view. The assumed policy would be to deal with sea level rise as it is an immediate problem and technology and other fixes will deal with the rest. Is that a fair summation?

I'm definitely more towards the last option in the poll, but I don't like to be characterized that way since I do think we need some intervention.  I think sea level rise IS something that is an immediate problem but nowhere near to the extent of the "alarmists."  I do not buy in to the catastrophic projections that have failed over and over - or at least I'm highly skeptical of them.  I do support the continued science but disagree with how we are using the science to push political agendas.  I think we do need to focus heavily on our environment, but in a pragmatic way.  Which means I'm ok with drilling and pipelines managed carefully, for example.  I'm not all or nothing and certainly not far left or right.

[AlexMar]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true.  Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen.  We lose some islands?  Need to slowly move inland?  Build a levy?  Plants and food might grow faster and in more places?  Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly.  It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen.  You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.  To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational.  Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all.  So why be so alarmed?

[Davnasty]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?

[Kris]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.

[Glenstache]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true.  Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen.  We lose some islands?  Need to slowly move inland?  Build a levy?  Plants and food might grow faster and in more places?  Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly.  It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen.  You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.  To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational.  Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all.  So why be so alarmed?

Question: what impacts of climate change do  you perceive to be potential issues other than sea level rise? Or is SLR the primary issue that you see as an issue?

[MasterStache]

I'm open to hearing differing views and forming my own opinion on the topic.

Again can you point out where facts were presented to dispute your claims and you accepted/acknowledged them? (ie. your claim that polar bear populations are increasing)

And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a view that is skeptical of it.

I would be right there with you if this were a fact. But your rationalization relies on speculative subjects like the exact prediction of polar bear extinction. Perhaps try temperature predictions. The IPCC's have been pretty solid for quite some time. I say this understanding full well your reliance on visual clues (ie. there are lots of fish, beaches and coral look fine to me, and there are still polar bears).
 

Believe it all, every bit of it, or you are an idiot denier Trump loving racist bigot who wants to see children die from global warming or something to that tune.  That's where we are at in the world right now.  It's sad, really.

You really need to knock off the extreme straw-man arguments. You cannot have a constructive, intelligent conversation typing this nonsense. That isn't where we are at. It's where you are at.

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

Uh yeah you might want to dig a bit deeper. Developments are going up and insurance rates are skyrocketing. Some folks have even just decided to not insure because the cost to replace is much cheaper. Feel free to fact check. 

[sol]

If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

Where are you getting these "alarmist" projections from?  For reference, the most current IPCC report predicts less than a meter of sea level rise over the coming century, and that's a higher prediction than the previous versions.  No one has ever said Miami will be underwater by this year, or whatever it is you're claiming.

You sound kind of like Donald Trump tweeting that the Green New Deal is an attempt to take away your cars and cows.  You're arguing against an imaginary extremist position that is easy to refute, because it doesn't actually exist.  We call that a straw man.

Climate change is a much slower process than the projections

No.

Speaking as one of the aforementioned PhDs with years of professional experience working for the US government on these very issues, you're very wrong on this one.  Each new IPCC report has had to up the severity of the predictions it makes, because our emissions keep rising faster than we expected, and the climate impacts keep being measured as more severe than we anticipated.  I technically agree with the criticism that our climate models have not been as accurate as we had hoped, but you have the sign of the error wrong.  The real world has turned out to be worse than the models predicted.

You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.

We're already spending trillions to prop up an unsustainable carbon-based energy economy.  Imagine how different our world would be if we could stop invading middle eastern countries that have lots of oil, or using the US military to defend tanker shipping routes.  What we need, IMO, is to reduce these government subsidies for oil and gas, and start spending some portion of that money on subsidizing research into energy sources that do less damage to our environment while still supporting our economy.  Is that really so radical? 

I mean there are literally entire government agencies JUST dedicated to helping oil and gas companies find and exploit reserves.  Where's the equivalent agency for solar, or wind? 

[nereo]

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

No.  Weather is what you get on a day to day basis.  Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.

(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).

Of course it's in jest.  I'm well aware of the difference.  I'm just pointing out that when weather phenomena happen that pushes the man made climate change agenda, it's "climate" - and when weather phenomena happen that suggest the opposite, then it's just "weather" and people are stupid and don't know the difference.

The barrier reef suffered some bleaching due to a heat wave.  So now that's catastrophic long term climate that will destroy every reef in the world and kill us all.  Please send your checks to the IPCC, thanks.

The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.  The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there.  Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.  When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great.  Tons of fish.  Consider that in Florida we have everyone screaming about how somehow the Republican governor is causing red tide and destroying the oceans.  This is due to having to drain Lake Okeechobee because we have too much fresh water.  The same people screaming about that issue are the same ones who scream about conserving fresh water, don't water your lawn!  I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions.  Global warming comes off similarly.  It's so radicalized.  You can't have a middle ground position.  You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier.  The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit.  Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?  Maybe even a little be more practical?  Just some food for thought.

I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)

@AlexMar - you cited Sol's response about the weakening of environmental protection when others had brought up your false statements.  Perhaps that was better aimed at me and/or Glenstache.

I didn't have time earlier to elucidate my brief response, but I do now.  Let's go down what you said point by point

The polar bears should already be gone - according to whom?

somehow we have even more of them [polar bears] - Wrong.  Polar bears are critically endangered and have declining global populations.  True, 2 of the 19 populations have seen modest increases in recent years (and largely in response to an exceptional level of protection), but all are down drastically from the 19th century, and having 17/19 populations in decline is a big problem from the polar bears' perspective.

The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone - again, according to whom?  The Marshall Islands have already lost a considerable amount of their land area, and the majority of the island is predicted to be underwater by 2100.  That's a far bit different from saying they already should be [entirely] gone.

Florida should be underwater - ...and again... who predicted Florida would already be underwater?  By all accounts Florida is suffering from substantial erotion though (see next point).

when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago - perhaps because they actively rebuild the beaches each and every winter? 

the reefs look healthy and great.  Perhaps to you.  To anyone that studies the reefs - particularly around the keys, they have been decimated. Your false perception could be due to you not having a very good frame of reference, or because you aren't particularly well versed on what a healthy reef looks like, as many of the reefs have been in very poor health since ~1983 (which coincided with the Diadema dieoff, from which many reefs in the keys never fully recovered). (Also link1.  link2. link3. link)

Tons of fish.  False.  The decline of fish is one of the best studied and most obvious changes worldwide. It's notable that what we've lost is overwhelmingly large predatory fish (ie those higher on the trophic scale) . Specific to the keys and the rest of the Caribbean, groupers are almost extinct, parrot fish have been in steep decline and once-abundant reef sharks are a rare sight.

Freshwater... red tides... etc.  I think here the problem is that you don't have a very good grasp of the underlying mechanisms.  THe level of Lake Okeechobee not withstanding, the reason that red tides are increasing in frequency and intensity is that they are being fed by an increase in nutrients, which primarily comes from terrestrial runoff. 

If you think I'm 'the left' simply because I agree that we have acute anthropogenically driven environmental problems, well you've grossly mischaracterized me. Further, demoting one's argument by attributing them to another group doesn't actually refute the argument that they are making.

[Syonyk]

Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better.  Kind of like what is already happening.  Cars are vastly more efficient and clean.  Tons of new technology is being introduced.  Power is cleaner.  Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient.  More efficient water heaters.  Cleaner water.  The list goes on.  It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.

Yup.  And this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.

Let's say one disagrees with AlexMar, as is the case here.  There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not (obviously this is the favored solution here), or say, "You know what?  Let's find common ground and go from there."  Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air - and, perhaps, locally produced energy.  There have been surveys done that ask people throughout the political spectrum what their support for solar is, and the support is fairly strong across the spectrum - but for different reasons.  A conservative is far more likely to value solar if it has grid-down operating capability of some form or another, but in general, deploying renewable energy isn't that controversial - across the spectrum. (http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/)

So find the common ground and move forward, instead of insisting that everyone has to agree about the reasons before doing anything.

I'll let some people reading in on another little secret: The vast, vast majority of diesel truck owners hate the coal-rolling idiots just as much as most people on the left do - just for different reasons.  It's a waste of perfectly good engines, and it tends to lead to unwelcome attention towards diesel trucks, the vast majority of which are owned by people who haul fairly heavy trailers (yes, there are people who drive a jacked up diesel as a daily driver, and, yes, they're regarded as pretty stupid by most truck owners as well).  I own a diesel truck, and I'll happily call in the tags of people who are obviously blowing clouds of smoke for no good reason.  However, I also understand that a bit of smoke under load is perfectly normal, and if a 20 year old truck is smoking a bit pulling a grade, well... it's probably got worn out injectors and the compression is a bit weak.  A 4 year old diesel blowing a coal black column?  Yeah, I report them.

Anyways, we see things differently.  When I see your links above, I don't see what you do.  Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides.  Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment.  "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!!

I'm about as pro-solar as they come, and I regularly get accused of being a fossil fuel shill for pointing out things like, "We still don't know how to make a stable power grid with a lot of solar and wind, without so many batteries that they drive the delivered cost per kWh way up."  Handling a few residential installs, not a problem.  Handling a lot - and doing so in a way that doesn't then starve the power grid of funding so you get defection-driven grid collapse?  Still a very much open problem, and Hawaii and California are places to watch here to see how things work.  The older inverter specs (pre-1741 SA/CA Rule 21) were also pretty grid-hostile, though the newer standards are a lot better on that front.

Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.

Actually, I continue to use fossil fuels because there's no alternative out there for at least some of my transportation/energy needs.  An electric truck that can tow a 10k lb trailer and crawl around my property doesn't exist - and though there are some that should be showing up in the next few years, I sure can't afford them (for a moderately responsible value of afford).  And while I could (and eventually plan to) trench power out to my solar powered office, I use 5-10 gallons of gas and about 5 gallons of propane a winter because it's a good bit cheaper than the radically expanded solar panel array and wastefully large battery pack I'd need to heat on electric all winter.

Though, to pick on Democratic lawmakers, most of them sure don't live like they believe their emissions matter.

[sol]

this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.

A hilarious use of the term "wall" to describe how the current administration is crashing head first into a polarizing issue by pushing for an irritatingly ineffective solution.  Kudos for unintentionally biting criticism of trump's immigration policy.

There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air

Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water?  Did you not see my list above?  At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water.  Look at what they do, not what they say.  They claim to want to clean air, then revoke air pollution standards.  They claim to want clean water, then allow mining waste to be dumped into streams.  I posted a long list of republican actions on clean air and water since trump took office, and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner.  Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse. 

I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different.  Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands.  I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.

[Syonyk]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.  I do believe Derrick Jensen and some of the DGR folks believe what they say, based on how they live their lives, but your typical Congressional Democrat?  Show me any evidence beyond the basic lip service required by their party that they believe in climate change.  There are a few, certainly, but the bulk?  Consider me unconvinced by their actions.

Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water?  Did you not see my list above?  At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water.

I saw your list, and while I'm not going to pick on every single one of them, I think your chosen titles are biased as hell, at least on some of the areas I'm familiar with.

To pick on your first one (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/), in particular (because I've done pretty extensive reading and at least some writing on wildfires in the past year), what is your specific problem with that EO?  You chose to use "Increased logging and road building in federal forests," which is a technically correct description, but entirely misses the point that the purpose of this is to reduce the wildfire fuel load - and that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you're concerned about wildfires and the massive damage they do.  I might nitpick a few things in the EO, but overall, I think it's a reasonable response to the wildfires we've been having and the past ~100 years of forest mismanagement ("Don't log it; don't let it burn!" is the sort of thing that can't go on forever, and we've hit the end of the road on it).  Modern logging is quite a bit different from Fern Gully, so... as I said, I'm interested in your particular opinions on why it's horrible.

I'm not familiar enough with some of the other things you've linked to be able to have a properly informed opinion.  What, in particular, is the problem with rolling back the new methane flaring standards (https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Final%20Rule%20-1004-AE53%20-%20%20Ready%20for%20OFR%209.18.18_508%20%281%29.pdf) ?  Obviously you have an opinion on it, since you chose to link it - would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?

Etc.  You've chosen deliberately biased titles in the areas I'm familiar with, so I have to assume you've done the same in other areas.

...and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner.  Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse.

So... increased logging access to reduce the spread and destruction of wildfires is making things worse, how, exactly?  I know how our air quality is during wildfire season when hundreds of thousands of acres turn into a rather aggressive smoke, and I'd far rather see some of that wood be put to good use (construction, biomass heating, etc) than to simply wait around for a fire to go through and turn it into smoke - especially if by reducing the fire load in areas, it can help reduce the spread/severity of fires in the first place.

I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different.  Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands.  I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.

Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland, and maybe they disagree with what the Democrats want.  Or, perhaps, because they value unborn human lives more highly than the Democrats tend to.  Or because they're sick of the Democrats treating their AR-platform hunting rifle as something just this side of an atomic bomb.  The list continues, and that absolutely everything has been turned into a political purity test is properly irritating.  Even things that both sides want get trapped in that mess (such as solar).

Also, just because politicians are doing something doesn't always mean that the people voting for them agree with it.  It may simply mean they disagree less than with the stated positions of the alternative(s).

[MasterStache]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office. 

[sol]

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

I'm not calling a large percentage of the population irrational, because almost nobody believes climate change isn't happening anymore.  There are people who believe the moon landing was faked, or the holocaust never happened, and people who believe climate isn't changing at all are even more fringe than that.  Because those are historical events with only second hand evidence, and we measure climate changing every single day in today's world. 

If someone is so far out of touch with reality that they will look at the thermometer in their own yard and call it a Chinese hoax, then I have no hesitation about calling them irrational.  Rational means you believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the collected evidence of a million other measurements about the world.  These are not opinions, these are measurable quantities of the physical world.  Temperatures are up.  Glaciers are shrinking.  Floods are more frequent.  You can't rationally deny objective reality.

Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.

What do you think they "should" be doing to live in accordance with their beliefs?  Is it possible that these democratic congresspeople recognize that climate is changing slowly, and also that carbon burning is a central part of our economy, and that change will come slowly over decades?  You don't have to live in a grass hut to believe in climate change.  There is no conflict inherent in having a car, or flying in airplanes, and also believing thermometers.

Show me any evidence beyond the basic lip service required by their party that they believe in climate change.

Well for starters there's the long list of environmental protections passed by the Obama administration.  The democrats actively pursued a greener economy because it was good for both the environment and our job numbers.  Is that not evidence enough?

Or are you still stuck on the idea that you have to live in a grass hut to believe climate change is a real thing.

To pick on your first one (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/), in particular (because I've done pretty extensive reading and at least some writing on wildfires in the past year), what is your specific problem with that EO?

My specific problem with it is that the wildfire excuse is a lie.  Nothing in there targets areas that have wildfire problems, they only target areas that have commercially valuable timber.  Nothing in there targets selective thinning of forests for fire suppression, just clearcutting.  The whole EO is about lifting restrictions on wilderness areas to allow road building, which can then be used to perpetuate deforestation for economic reasons.  "Wildfires" is just the political cover story for allowing increased logging, regardless 

But the logging example is about the least problematic thing in that entire list, from an environmental harm perspective.  It kills wildlife and contributes to increased erosion and increased stream temperatures and a whole host of other problems, but it's not on the same level as repealing the clean air or clean water standards.  It doesn't literally result in the death of thousands of people, the way that repealing the clean air standards does.

Modern logging is quite a bit different from Fern Gully, so... as I said, I'm interested in your particular opinions on why it's horrible.

I'm professional quite familiar with modern logging, at least in my corner of the country.  It's never done for fire reasons, because it's just not economically viable to thin remote forests.  You can thin trees in places that already have roads built, especially if they're big ones, but most of that land has already been logged and replanted and isn't ready to harvest again yet.  What the logging companies want is access to our protected wilderness areas, where no roads (or any other infrastructure) exists, and that EO gives them permission to build it.

would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?

I would.  How far off topic do you really want to go?  This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed.  I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern.  Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them.  Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.

Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland

Forest management is the least of my worries.  Don't get stuck there.  I'm much more concerned about the systematic efforts by this administration to remove all discussion of climate change from official government websites and reports, and allowing additional air pollution that has a super well-documented direct correlation to human deaths.  That's suppressing information that is vital to our national well-being, and letting innocent people die for no reason other than increasing corporate profit margins.  Seems like textbook Hollywood evil supervillain stuff, right?

[GuitarStv]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office. 

+1

If someone is willing to deny that a measurable problem exists, they will actively work to undermine education and effort done to fix the problem as to them it's wasted and frivolous.  These are the people that my first comment in the thread was about:

Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.

Meeting them half way is ultimately doomed to failure because the halfway point between undermining climate change science and doing something to fix the problem of climate change is 0.

The whole reason that climate change is contentious is because a group of people refuse to accept reality if it means it might inconvenience them.  I don't know how you're supposed to come to a consensus with that kind of person about the need for something that might be inconvenient.

[Glenstache]

would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?

I would.  How far off topic do you really want to go?  This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed.  I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern.  Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them.  Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.

Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland

The flaring is pretty smack on target as a policy issue. The flaring considerably increases the GHG emissions associated with petroleum production. Reducing flaring is one of many ways to reduce emissions. Yes, it does increase production costs and it is a pain in the ass for petroleum producers. Taking a more global perspective on it, here is a peer-reviewed take on it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X17300962

The federal vs state control of land in the west has a long history of weird threads to it. In short it is either a religious fundamentalist thread (Aka, the Bundy's at Malheur) or a desire to be able to extract resources from publicly held lands with less oversight. This has long roots and deep funding from extractive business interests such as the Koch brothers (see funding for the American Lands Council, which is the primary policy engine for public lands transfers). The goal is simple: reduce the size of the regulatory agency to something that can be easily controlled and which does not have the financial resources to do so. How many states can maintain National Forest lands, roads, and infrastructure? That is an aside, but one which actually has a lot of opposition across the political spectrum once people understand the issues. High Country News has done a lot of very good coverage of the issues. <end tangent>

[Syonyk]

What do you think they "should" be doing to live in accordance with their beliefs?  Is it possible that these democratic congresspeople recognize that climate is changing slowly, and also that carbon burning is a central part of our economy, and that change will come slowly over decades?  You don't have to live in a grass hut to believe in climate change.  There is no conflict inherent in having a car, or flying in airplanes, and also believing thermometers.

In general, I would expect someone who is making large statements about carbon-caused climate change to be living somewhere between a low carbon and a fully carbon offset life.  It's not like it's expensive to offset a typical life.  Some moderately extensive searching can't find much in the way of congresspersons doing this, beyond a guy from 2007.

And, if they've got homes with good sun exposure, extensive (and perhaps more than required to zero their power use) solar arrays.

Basically, "do something so it at least looks like you're living what you claim you care about."

Well for starters there's the long list of environmental protections passed by the Obama administration.  The democrats actively pursued a greener economy because it was good for both the environment and our job numbers.  Is that not evidence enough?

I mean, they got us to pat ourselves on the back by agreeing to maybe at some point reducing the rate of increase of carbon emissions in the future, unless some other group of politicians disagree (as has happened).

Yes, they've done some useful things.  I'm not arguing that, but I don't see the sort of substantial efforts that make any sort of actual progress towards the emissions targets set for remarkably close in the future.

My specific problem with it is that the wildfire excuse is a lie.  Nothing in there targets areas that have wildfire problems, they only target areas that have commercially valuable timber.  Nothing in there targets selective thinning of forests for fire suppression, just clearcutting.  The whole EO is about lifting restrictions on wilderness areas to allow road building, which can then be used to perpetuate deforestation for economic reasons.  "Wildfires" is just the political cover story for allowing increased logging, regardless

Given that pretty much the entire western half of the United States is now wildfire territory (with the exception of west of the Cascades, for now), do you have any actual justification that the whole thing about wildfire is a lie?

The USDA Forest Service Chief seems to think it's a reasonable thing, and she knows an awful lot more about it than I do.

You seem to be falling into the (admittedly common) trap of assuming that everything Trump does is evilly evil for evil's sake, full stop, instead of actually looking into the stuff he does.

I would.  How far off topic do you really want to go?  This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed.  I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern.  Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them.  Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.

You're the one using your "list" as an argument from volume of evidence, so... yeah, I'm interested in the details of the flaring regulation changes.

Please don't confuse me as a Trump supporter.  I don't like him.  But I also don't think he's a cartoon villain.  He's not that competent.

[Johnez]

I don't know, when Trump declares he wants to hold back federal aid to California unless they do what HE wants in regards to forestry management, I'd call it evil.  There is no other word.

In addition, the problems with wildfires specifically in California are due not to forests that aren't well enough managed, but by developers encroaching deeper into wilderness placing homes at greater risk.  In other words, the forest isn't the problem, it's the damn homes being built there and catching fire that is the problem.  The single biggest way to prevent more wildfire disasters in California is to stop building homes in danger's way.

[scottish]

If someone is so far out of touch with reality that they will look at the thermometer in their own yard and call it a Chinese hoax, then I have no hesitation about calling them irrational.  Rational means you believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the collected evidence of a million other measurements about the world.  These are not opinions, these are measurable quantities of the physical world.  Temperatures are up.  Glaciers are shrinking.  Floods are more frequent.  You can't rationally deny objective reality.

Yeah, they're measurable quantities.   But you can't experience them by looking at your thermometer.    If you go up to the rockies every 10 years you can see the Saskatchewan glacier shrinking noticeably but that's about it.     It's not "objective reality" to most people, it's information reported by the media.

[Syonyk]

In addition, the problems with wildfires specifically in California are due not to forests that aren't well enough managed, but by developers encroaching deeper into wilderness placing homes at greater risk.  In other words, the forest isn't the problem, it's the damn homes being built there and catching fire that is the problem.  The single biggest way to prevent more wildfire disasters in California is to stop building homes in danger's way.

Eh... kind of.  Yes, the urban wild interface is a problem, but it's more how the houses are being built, and less (to an extent) where they're being built.  Plenty of Paradise was leveled even though it didn't catch directly from the forest - the firebrands are the big issue.

https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/08/wildfires-in-western-united-states.html covers it in a good bit more detail, but basically, firebrand-resistant homes are the way to go.  Even a towering wall of forest on fire, a couple hundred feet away, won't light a house from radiant heat.

[Johnez]

That is a pretty damn well put together piece of writing. I hate to take issue with a single bit or two, but two things stick out to me. One is, you acknowledge wild fires are natural and necessary as evidenced by the lightning strikes and the need for burnt areas for Sequoia seeds to sprout. The other is the "problems" caused by wildfires are all human related. Utility equipment in disrepair sparking massive blazes. Houses being built too close to forests and too close to each other, and without adequate roads out, catching fire. Some in depth  research presented on firebrands,  but the houses that are subject to them would not even have to catch fire if they simply weren't built. And there's no way to fix the past  practice of instantly extinguishing fires everywhere killing the normal fire cycle that "nature" seems to actually need. Now we do know better, but what are we going to do when one of those inaccessible areas catches fire and grows to huge size?

It seems to me that letting people build near the forests causes problems, and simultaneously are the victims of those problems. The easiest course of action would be to limit what can be damaged by limiting the development. Interestingly, the free market might be an ally here as insurance companies are probably taking note and adjust rates and coverage accordingly.

"Thinning" the forests? You have faith that companies won't put profits over the environment here? Thinning forests as I understand is a tedious process, much harder than clear cutting. With the way the current administration is throwing open all the levers that controlled environmental damage, what's to say Trump isn't going to sign off on whatever a logging company wants after they dip their toes in? Trump might have been a masterful negotiator when he was an unknown quantity, we know what he's driving toward now. I don't see much ground ceded here.

[Syonyk]

That is a pretty damn well put together piece of writing.

Thanks, I enjoy long form deep dives into interesting topics.  I haven't had quite as much time for that recently with the new kid and prep for projects this year (installing solar, a deck, graveling around structures for fire resistance, etc), but there's a lot of long form stuff in my blog.

Some in depth  research presented on firebrands,  but the houses that are subject to them would not even have to catch fire if they simply weren't built.

Sure, but they are built - so unless your proposal is to just flatten neighborhoods within a mile or so of the wilderness interface (which will creep out over time - so you'd have to keep flattening more homes as it expanded), it's a problem that will continue to exist - and, really, the solutions aren't that difficult.  Building codes for the interface zone need to be a lot tighter, and as much as I generally hate HOAs, something like "property management to reduce neighborhood fire risk" is something I'd be OK with them existing for.

Meanwhile, in reality, "not having whole neighborhoods catch fire and burn" seems a useful thing we could be working towards.

And there's no way to fix the past  practice of instantly extinguishing fires everywhere killing the normal fire cycle that "nature" seems to actually need. Now we do know better, but what are we going to do when one of those inaccessible areas catches fire and grows to huge size?

If it's properly inaccessible, letting it burn is probably the right option - we have to reset somehow, and there's an awful lot of area that needs to return to a natural cycle.  Until it does, it's more or less a tinderbox waiting for a spark.  I don't have any particularly good answers on how to reset things, because as far as I can tell, they don't exist.

It seems to me that letting people build near the forests causes problems, and simultaneously are the victims of those problems. The easiest course of action would be to limit what can be damaged by limiting the development. Interestingly, the free market might be an ally here as insurance companies are probably taking note and adjust rates and coverage accordingly.

I'm guessing there will be some changes to insurance policies coming, yes.  It's not something I'm terribly familiar with, as my risk is simply small grass fires.

"Thinning" the forests? You have faith that companies won't put profits over the environment here? Thinning forests as I understand is a tedious process, much harder than clear cutting. With the way the current administration is throwing open all the levers that controlled environmental damage, what's to say Trump isn't going to sign off on whatever a logging company wants after they dip their toes in?

I'm more a fan of locally owned companies and state control over forest lands coming to agreements on what can be done - I think local control and negotiation is better than one size fits all federal policies.  A well managed forest can be sustainably logged over time for far more value than just clear cutting it, though obviously the returns take longer to materialize.  I've found smaller companies (often family owned) tend to think through this better than large, shareholder-driven companies.

The thing is, Trump shouldn't have that much say in logging in the first place.  It shouldn't be an area where the President needs to make EOs, because it should be managed downstream by people who know an awful lot more about the issues.

But, given that, I also reject the common way of thinking that anything Trump does is pure evil simply because Trump did it.  Same for the Republicans - I disagree with them on many points, but I'm not willing to say, "A Republican said it, therefore it's automatically awful."

[AlexMar]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true.  Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen.  We lose some islands?  Need to slowly move inland?  Build a levy?  Plants and food might grow faster and in more places?  Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly.  It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen.  You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.  To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational.  Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all.  So why be so alarmed?

Question: what impacts of climate change do  you perceive to be potential issues other than sea level rise? Or is SLR the primary issue that you see as an issue?

It seems to be the dominant issue.  I know "more hurricanes" was a bullshit prediction that failed miserably.  And now when it gets really cold, supposedly that's due to global warming, too.  We have had red tide since the first settlers in Florida, but now supposedly it's due to global warming.  I'm sure there are 1000's of catastrophes due to global warming!  I'm certainly open to some other suggestions and would weigh the facts fairly.

[AlexMar]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?

I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.  Believing it's going to magically start accelerating, any year now.... is religion.  But it's not a controversial thing to say that the global warming movement has largely centered around accelerating and catastrophic sea level rise.  The problem is, that it's just not happening.  The actual trend is barely 8 inches over the next 100 years.  The models and predictions are more like 8 feet.  This acceleration has been predicted for decades.  Yet here we are, decades later, and still trending the same.

The earth is warming.  Sea levels are rising.  The problem is, the predictions of catastrophe due to human influence just haven't panned out one bit.  We are not going to stop sea level rise be cutting fossil fuels.  And until we actually see some acceleration, I'll remain skeptical.

[AlexMar]

Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better.  Kind of like what is already happening.  Cars are vastly more efficient and clean.  Tons of new technology is being introduced.  Power is cleaner.  Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient.  More efficient water heaters.  Cleaner water.  The list goes on.  It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.

Yup.  And this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.

Let's say one disagrees with AlexMar, as is the case here.  There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not (obviously this is the favored solution here), or say, "You know what?  Let's find common ground and go from there."  Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air - and, perhaps, locally produced energy.  There have been surveys done that ask people throughout the political spectrum what their support for solar is, and the support is fairly strong across the spectrum - but for different reasons.  A conservative is far more likely to value solar if it has grid-down operating capability of some form or another, but in general, deploying renewable energy isn't that controversial - across the spectrum. (http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/)

So find the common ground and move forward, instead of insisting that everyone has to agree about the reasons before doing anything.

I'll let some people reading in on another little secret: The vast, vast majority of diesel truck owners hate the coal-rolling idiots just as much as most people on the left do - just for different reasons.  It's a waste of perfectly good engines, and it tends to lead to unwelcome attention towards diesel trucks, the vast majority of which are owned by people who haul fairly heavy trailers (yes, there are people who drive a jacked up diesel as a daily driver, and, yes, they're regarded as pretty stupid by most truck owners as well).  I own a diesel truck, and I'll happily call in the tags of people who are obviously blowing clouds of smoke for no good reason.  However, I also understand that a bit of smoke under load is perfectly normal, and if a 20 year old truck is smoking a bit pulling a grade, well... it's probably got worn out injectors and the compression is a bit weak.  A 4 year old diesel blowing a coal black column?  Yeah, I report them.

Anyways, we see things differently.  When I see your links above, I don't see what you do.  Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides.  Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment.  "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!!

I'm about as pro-solar as they come, and I regularly get accused of being a fossil fuel shill for pointing out things like, "We still don't know how to make a stable power grid with a lot of solar and wind, without so many batteries that they drive the delivered cost per kWh way up."  Handling a few residential installs, not a problem.  Handling a lot - and doing so in a way that doesn't then starve the power grid of funding so you get defection-driven grid collapse?  Still a very much open problem, and Hawaii and California are places to watch here to see how things work.  The older inverter specs (pre-1741 SA/CA Rule 21) were also pretty grid-hostile, though the newer standards are a lot better on that front.

Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.

Actually, I continue to use fossil fuels because there's no alternative out there for at least some of my transportation/energy needs.  An electric truck that can tow a 10k lb trailer and crawl around my property doesn't exist - and though there are some that should be showing up in the next few years, I sure can't afford them (for a moderately responsible value of afford).  And while I could (and eventually plan to) trench power out to my solar powered office, I use 5-10 gallons of gas and about 5 gallons of propane a winter because it's a good bit cheaper than the radically expanded solar panel array and wastefully large battery pack I'd need to heat on electric all winter.

Though, to pick on Democratic lawmakers, most of them sure don't live like they believe their emissions matter.

Another thing not discussed is just how dirty lithium mining is.  Or the fact that lithium is not unlimited.  We don't actually have enough lithium on the planet for everyone to drive electric cars and install power walls.

[AlexMar]

Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water?  Did you not see my list above?  At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water.  Look at what they do, not what they say.  They claim to want to clean air, then revoke air pollution standards.  They claim to want clean water, then allow mining waste to be dumped into streams.  I posted a long list of republican actions on clean air and water since trump took office, and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner.  Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse. 

I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different.  Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands.  I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.

What you are pointing out is lawmakers who are interested in cutting pointless regulations that strangled industries without achieving their goals.  Then you use the headlines to try and make your point "revoke air pollution standards" - OMG, they want dirty air!!!  It's highly likely that you pollute the air to some extent.  Vehicle, chemicals, who knows.  So let's say a highly economically damaging law was passed... can't use any internal combustion engines anymore.  Period.  Stop vehicle pollution 100%.  Goes in to effect immediately.  Nobody can drive to work.  Jobs lost.  Industries destroyed.  But hey, clean air, right?  Then another lawmaker comes out and says, that's not reasonable, it's a step too far and too radical.  We are going in the direction of cleaner air and less emissions already, and we need to go in that direction in a more responsible way without destroying industries.  So we are removing the "Zero Vehicle Pollution" law.  Then here you come... "They want dirty air, see, they revoked a pollution regulation!!!!"

[Syonyk]

Another thing not discussed is just how dirty lithium mining is.  Or the fact that lithium is not unlimited.  We don't actually have enough lithium on the planet for everyone to drive electric cars and install power walls.

Actually, cobalt is more likely to be an issue in the near term - not that lithium mining is particularly clean.

https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2015/12/cobalt-requirements-for-global-electric.html

Some of the data in that post is old - newer chemistries tend to use less cobalt, but most of the good chemistries are still using a good bit.  The non-cobalt chemistries pay a pretty good penalty in either energy or power density (usually, both - look at the density numbers for LiMN, LiFePO4, LTO, etc).  About 50% of the world's cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most of that is "artisanally mined" - or, "by hand, no safety standards, with an awful lot of child labor involved."  Uncomfortable facts, certainly, and that one supplier or another uses "non-Congo cobalt" doesn't really change much, because, well, it's a commodity.  If they don't use it, someone else will, and demand is demand, for an awfully good first order approximation.

That's part of why I'm so disappointed that GM killed the Volt off.  It makes far better use of limited battery production than a pure electric car.  For the cells and materials that go into a single 100kWh Tesla pack, you could build 5-6 Volt packs, offset an awful lot more gasoline use, and have a far bigger impact - because cell production is a bottleneck, and beyond just that, the materials going into the cells are a bottleneck at not too many multiples of global battery pack production.  So you're far better off with a moderate range PHEV from a climate and energy perspective than you are with long range BEVs that never use the bulk of their pack.  We use the ~10kWh in our Volt pretty much every time we go somewhere, and use a bit of gas as well, but we make far better use of the cells in the car, and still are managing about 150 miles per gallon of gas used (5x what our Mazda 3 got in the exact same driving conditions).

[AlexMar]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?  I'll give an example.  AOC is taking a lot of heat for acting like an economic retard and torpedoing the Amazon deal which would have brought billions to the State and created countless jobs.  It's the same type of deal that got Tesla's Gigafactory rolling in Nevada.  The same factory that is designed to drastically reduce carbon emissions and push a green agenda.  Could you imagine if there was an AOC in Nevada?  One side likes the idea of the private sector and capitalism leading the way, the other side wants strict government intervention and industry killing regulations to lead the way. Can't we just disagree on the methods?  Suggesting half the country doesn't care about the environment is pretty ridiculous.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that American private sector innovation, is a pretty solid way to achieve these goals, considering it's basically the way America has always done it.  Working pretty good I'd say.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/epa-acting-administrator-andrew-wheeler-trump-administrations-waters-united-states-rule-gives-power-back-states/

[MasterStache]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies. 

[MasterStache]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?

I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.

You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[AlexMar]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

[AlexMar]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?

I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.

You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :

Are we reading something different?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580

"Sea Level Trends" - are you getting a different title?

The relevant info:

based on monthly mean sea level data from 1913 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.

The trend is 3/4 of a foot over 100 years.  Now let's talk about that 6 feet in 80 years thing.  And the fact that this prediction has been made since the 1980's.  30+ years later and for some reason, the trend is still the same.  When will that severe acceleration start?  Another 10 years?  If we don't do something RIGHT NOW!!!  5 years!!  Still waiting for the J curve, the big woosh straight up!  Catastrophe, islands gone, people dying, The Day After Tomorrow.  At what point do we have the right to be skeptical?  How many years?  How many decades?

I'll post the relative projections here.  You'll notice these are projections NOT based on the mean average over the last 105 years.  Now, again, note these predictions were starting in the 80's.  So we could have had this discussion in the 80's... and you would say "Well, the projections are in the future, it's what's coming, science!!!"  - and here we are decades later and it's still the same old story....  Just give it more decades...  Science!  Stop denying science!!  And again, how many more decades of the same failed projections must occur until we can be skeptical of it?

[MasterStache]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?

I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.

You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :

Are we reading something different?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580

"Sea Level Trends" - are you getting a different title?

The relevant info:

based on monthly mean sea level data from 1913 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.

The trend is 3/4 of a foot over 100 years.  Now let's talk about that 6 feet in 80 years thing.  And the fact that this prediction has been made since the 1980's.  30+ years later and for some reason, the trend is still the same.  When will that severe acceleration start?  Another 10 years?  If we don't do something RIGHT NOW!!!  5 years!!

I doubt it, you just seem to be leaving out parts  of it:

"Relative Sea Level Trend
8724580 Key West, Florida"

[MasterStache]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know. 

[AlexMar]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air.  You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them.  That's simply impossible for you to comprehend.  "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"

[Kris]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air.  You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them.  That's simply impossible for you to comprehend.  "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"

AlexMar.

I mean...

Come on.

The GOP generally speaking doesn't want to admit that anthropogenic climate change is even a thing.

So... How do we all "want the same thing"?

I mean... I'm sorry to interject myself into this conversation, but... I just have to say... really???

[AlexMar]

You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

[AlexMar]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air.  You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them.  That's simply impossible for you to comprehend.  "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"

AlexMar.

I mean...

Come on.

The GOP generally speaking doesn't want to admit that anthropogenic climate change is even a thing.

So... How do we all "want the same thing"?

I mean... I'm sorry to interject myself into this conversation, but... I just have to say... really???

"To different degrees"

Anyways.  It's simple.  We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc.  When the starting point that we have to agree on is "anthropogenic climate change is real and catastrophic, massive things must be done by 2015 (yeah) or we are all doomed - and we need to commit $100B/year to poor countries so they can fight climate change" - well, then maybe we aren't having a reasonable discussion.  It's kind of like you are saying "we all just need to agree to agree with me" as opposed to finding a common middle ground and understanding.  In other words, if we removed the extremes from the conversation, then we may find that the middle ground is actually where the extremes wanted to be all along.  We are rapidly improving in regards to the environment, emissions, etc.  Rapidly.  The growth of incredibly efficient vehicles and zero emission vehicles is incredible.  Even the new trend for cruise ships is a move to LNG instead of the awful heavy fuel oil.  And it's due to private sector innovations and a demand for it.  It's come about from both Republican economic policies AND Democrat regulatory policies.  There is much more middle ground than you think.  But speaking in extremes "Trump and Republicans wants more pollution and don't care about the environment" is so unhelpful, and not to mention, just completely false.

[MasterStache]

I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore.  Climate is changing.  People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it.  There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing.  You can't argue with thermometers.

Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?

My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition.  Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. 

Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.

I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?

Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.

Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? 

Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"

He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.

Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made.  Thanks.

I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air.  You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them.  That's simply impossible for you to comprehend.  "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"

Umm you made it political not me. I said nothing of Dems or Republicans. What does "dirty water" and "air" have to do with the increase in the average global temps, dying reefs, polar bear population decline, rising sea levels, solar and wind energy? I spoke of the current admins desire to not pursue any sort of "green" policies. You just created one big giant straw-man fallacy. A point was made, just not the one you intended.

BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.

[MasterStache]

Anyways.  It's simple.  We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc.

Can you provide evidence that Trump is actively pursuing renewable energy supportive policies?

[Davnasty]

You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:

The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.

From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.

I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.

[AlexMar]

BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.

Already have.

[AlexMar]

You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:

The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.

From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.

I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.

Of course those claims were disproven.  That was my entire point.  I never claimed the IPCC made these claims.  I have said it's been the mainstream rhetoric used to advance political agendas.  People like Al Gore (a politician, mind you) have absolutely claimed the ice caps would be gone and massive sea level rise by now. It's you guys who then say "oh, where did the IPCC make this claim, book and page number."  I would say "Exactly."

On the other hand, I have also pointed out data and reports, which you conveniently skip over.  Let's take the NY Times article from 30 years ago.  Here is the problem, we are more than half way towards their doomsday date and NO acceleration.  We aren't talking 5 - 10 years later.  It's been a long ass time.  Yet the sea level rise is still as slow as it ever was.  1 - 4 feet by 2050?  We are pacing a few inches.  When is that big jump we have been haring about since the 80's?  Any day now....  What are you impressed by?  That they have been wrong?

"the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution" - the earth IS warming and has been for a very long time.  Sea levels have been rising and have been for a very long time.  The problem is all the human caused acceleration hasn't panned out one bit.  30 years later and no acceleration.  And I'd say again, how many more decades have to go by until we are allowed to voice skepticism without being labeled some sort of "denier"?

[MasterStache]

BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.

Already have.

Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?

[LennStar]

ptf.

This thread can't possibly become controversial!

It should not. It is very simple: Do you want to have people in 100 years living a better life? Than yes, we need to do big things. If not, then no. Let them deal with a Gongola-New York!
Maybe it becomes a tourist attraction for the people in the corn belt who don't see any water that isn't pumped for a few hundred miles.

Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.

Tell them it hasn't snowed (well, that not instantly melted) here in central Germany for the whole, winter, an last week we had 16 degrees Celsius (60 Fahrenheit). Currently it's 12C/53F at 1p.m.

And tell them the big snow that you had a few weeks ago has the same reason as the second worst heat wave ever we had in 2018 summer. It's artic circulation breaking down because of higher temperatures.

There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.

Not misconception.
In the 1970 I think it even was, EXXON scientist, in an internatl study, came to the conclusion that climate change was happening and man-made.
The company reacted by putting that study in the biggest safe and hiring the same people that did the "smoking does not cause cancer" FUD campaign for Big Tobacco to do the same for Big Oil and climate change.

Oh, MasterStache has already said that. I should read all before writing more lol.

Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?

Yeah, it's a hard one, but not as hard as it might look if we just act towards it. Growth does not need to be = more emissions. It used to be impossible to build refrigerators without gases that damage the ozon layer. Than a small company from Eastern Germany, already planned to be demolished after the collapse of the GDR, raised the hand and said "Um. No. Actually we can do this." (true story).

A very simple and extremely easy measuere would be to just stop stupid overconsumption, and MMM has told you how, not only for Clown cars. US emissions could probably be halved just by everyone switching to mustachian.

You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.

I can assure you the problem of grid-feeding is far less severe than you think. It IS a problem, as is storage of electricity, but Germany manages 30% regenerative energies with a bad distribution background (all industry in one part, where the big old power plants are, all wind in the other half for example).

Trump might just do some good here if he manages a thumping global recession... that's a pretty good way to bring down emissions by a decent bit.

LOL yeah. I have mused sometimes that Trump may go in history as the president that made CO2 emissions drop right in the 10 years when it was decisive. History likes her puns!

I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.

You are going to die. With 100% certainty. So are you going to sit only at home, because there is no sense in doing anything, because it will all vanish for you anyway?

The other big one I'd say is the EU, but compared to the USA we already pollute way less (on average, heavily dependent on the country you're looking at), we already have more ambitious plans (to my knowledge), plus we're a bunch of independent countries so it's much harder to get to 1 overall policy.

I don't think you understand the political EU lol

I’m guessing at some point we’ll hit a critical threshold and the majority will see climate change as (the) major national priority.

Trouble is that this is often a literal generational thing. It may be that we are approaching the point where the "olds" are dying out now, but it still is a close thing.
Nobody has put it better (on a slighly different topic/"ideology") than this guy (really watch it for the laugh):
https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1092807628147879939?s=21

It's really hard to sell something that you won't see in your lifetime.  People just do not think that way.

And that is the core why it is a political decision, not a "find out what you can do" one, as the opponents often say. It is not indivudial action that decides, but action of everyone, that have to be made by the society (and, yes, by a certain amount force if necessary, like a carbon tax).
When the Romans build the aqueducts, they didn't do it because the leaders wanted to have fresh water. They had. But they wanted fresh water for all of the "eternal city", and at least one of those aqueducts still does this work today, after 2000 years.
We are now in the position of having to do the same thing, or up to two billion people will see their living conditions worse to uninhabitable in the next 200 years.

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

No, the single heatwave or coldwave are weather.
The waves coming again and again are caused by climate change.
A coral reef can sustain even a 90% demage year. But maybe not 3 of them in one decade, and we already had 2 of those.
Scientists are activly trying to re-plant the reefs with the more resistant survivors btw. and not sure if they will succeed.

The problem is, sea level just isn't rising any faster.  It's not accelerating.

It is. It used to be 1/10th of what it is now just 50 years ago.

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic,

Unfortunately the climate does not care if it is radical or not. The change will happen, regardless of how oyu call it, and the results will be incredibly bad for humanity and devasteating to the eco system.

And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade,

But they do not O.o Not on any larger scale. They only get more and more correct, like weather prodictions did too in the past.
OF COURSE you can find a wrong prediction. Even one by a famous "climate radical" with 50 years of work in the field. But if there are 99 mainly correct predictions and 1 wrong, I still go with the 99 and don't say they are worthless because there is that one wrong.

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

If I remember right, because there was a law enacted that explicitly forbid to calculate with the "fake news" climate change in development plans.
Might have been a different city though.

I know "more hurricanes" was a bullshit prediction that failed miserably.

That is not a topic I know much about. But taking a short look into Wikipedia, it says:
Mayor hurricanes, 1850-1854 (to take the earliest 5 years): 5
1970-1974: 6
2010-2014: 13

For me, that looks like an increase, not like the same or even less.

And now when it gets really cold, supposedly that's due to global warming, too.

As I wrote above, failing polar circulation. I know a nice explainer video, but it's in German.

And no, you cannot say "it is because of global warming" in the strict sense, because it is not a 1:1 causation. But the warming makes all those effects far more likely and more severe.
So, in the common sense, "caused by global warming" is right, even if you can't put a statistical point to a certain cause. It is like cancer. You can get lung cancer without having build a WWII warship (asbestos), but having build one you still have 10 times higher risk to get it. Asbestos causes cancer. Global warming causes waves of extreme weather. It is actually this easy!

AOC is taking a lot of heat for acting like an economic retard and torpedoing the Amazon deal which would have brought billions to the State and created countless jobs.

It's another straw man, for if you want: Nobody prevents Amazon from building. They just don't get any extras. Do we need to heavily subsidize the company (which is known for extremely bad working conditions btw) of the richest man in the world with tax payer money?

The point that you are so politically radicalized

No, the point is that you ignore measured facts again and again and every time someone points that out you are going "you are so politically radicalized" as if you were an ISIS suicide bomber hearing someone saying that dying for the Quoran is something only stupid people do.

[AlexMar]

Anyways.  It's simple.  We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc.

Can you provide evidence that Trump is actively pursuing renewable energy supportive policies?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-just-gave-renewable-energy-a-long-awaited-victory

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/23/donald-trump-stance-wind-power/

Even CNN:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html

And if you read the CNN article, especially the last section, keep in mind the current administration has moved hard towards allowing States more control over their energy/pollution.

[AlexMar]

BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.

Already have.

Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?

I see you have admitted defeat.  Thank you.

And for what it's worth:

https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/

[AlexMar]

It is. It used to be 1/10th of what it is now just 50 years ago.

No, it's not.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

"The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise.  The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century."

That is not a topic I know much about. But taking a short look into Wikipedia, it says:
Mayor hurricanes, 1850-1854 (to take the earliest 5 years): 5
1970-1974: 6
2010-2014: 13

For me, that looks like an increase, not like the same or even less.

As a South Florida resident, it's a topic I know quite a bit about.  Every single year, without fail, we are told it's going to be a horrible season with brutal hurricanes, lots of them, and way more intensity.  And nearly every year that doesn't happen.   But I'll let a NOAA researcher explain why we still expected increases:

"Gerry Bell, a hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, told reporters in August that researchers have seen “a lot of active hurricane seasons in the Atlantic” since 1995 that have been linked to warmer ocean temperatures. He said the Atlantic has historically produced 25 to 40-year stretches of warmth, when hurricane activity increases, followed by cooling, when it slows. Reduced activity between 2013 and 2015 led researchers to speculate that “maybe we’re getting out of” the warming phase, Bell said."

It's another straw man, for if you want: Nobody prevents Amazon from building. They just don't get any extras. Do we need to heavily subsidize the company (which is known for extremely bad working conditions btw) of the richest man in the world with tax payer money?

It's not a straw man at all.  It's the reality of what happened and the fact that competition does exist.  These weren't credits (as AOC famously claimed) - they were INCENTIVES.  In other words, Amazon brings in $30 billion in new taxes and countless high paying jobs (who all pay taxes), and we'll give them a break on $3 billion.  That's a nice incentive to get done what we need done and still bring in a massive positive outcome.  We give tax incentives for all sorts of things.  That's how it works.  The government uses the tax code to incentivize clean energy all the time.  Solar, wind, etc.  Tax incentives to buy electric cars is a popular one.  Subsidies to solar companies.
 The tax code is basically how the government gets things done without resorting to governmental takeover of industries.  It's literally how it works.  It's how you get people to invest more, buy things, etc.  By offering incentives.

[Davnasty]

You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.

This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:

The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.

From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.

I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.

Of course those claims were disproven.  That was my entire point.  I never claimed the IPCC made these claims.  I have said it's been the mainstream rhetoric used to advance political agendas.  People like Al Gore (a politician, mind you) have absolutely claimed the ice caps would be gone and massive sea level rise by now. It's you guys who then say "oh, where did the IPCC make this claim, book and page number."  I would say "Exactly."

On the other hand, I have also pointed out data and reports, which you conveniently skip over.  Let's take the NY Times article from 30 years ago.  Here is the problem, we are more than half way towards their doomsday date and NO acceleration.  We aren't talking 5 - 10 years later.  It's been a long ass time.  Yet the sea level rise is still as slow as it ever was.  1 - 4 feet by 2050?  We are pacing a few inches.  When is that big jump we have been haring about since the 80's?  Any day now....  What are you impressed by?  That they have been wrong?

"the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution" - the earth IS warming and has been for a very long time.  Sea levels have been rising and have been for a very long time.  The problem is all the human caused acceleration hasn't panned out one bit.  30 years later and no acceleration.  And I'd say again, how many more decades have to go by until we are allowed to voice skepticism without being labeled some sort of "denier"?

You've misunderstood. When I said these claims have been disproven I was referring to claims like "Polar bear population is increasing and therefore everything is fine." Put into context, you realize hunting restrictions are an added variable which make it very possible that overall numbers have increased while habitat has been lost.

Regarding Al Gore and "an Inconvenient Truth" I'm definitely not a fan. He used worst cases scenarios, misrepresented some of the science and used all kinds of emotional and scare tactics. I think his intentions were good but you're right, he's a politician and the best way most politicians know to get people to do what they want is to scare them. All that said, he still didn't predict that the polar ice caps would be gone by now, he said that there was a possibility that there would be no summer sea ice. Here's a better explanation of how he was wrong:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.

[AlexMar]

On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.

You are taking 2 different points I made and conflating them.  One is the doomsday political rhetoric, and the other is the actual data/science (which is rather doomsday but certainly not the same extent of the politicians).  I know the IPCC has not claimed Florida would be gone by now.

But what the IPCC and global warming scientists have claimed is acceleration that must be tackled right away.  The problem is, as you even just admitted, is that it's not really happening the way they say it would.  Falling short of the 1' estimate is a really big deal.  The seas have been rising for thousands of years.  That's nothing new.  They were rising before the industrial revolution.  We are being sold on a catastrophe but the reality seems to be the seas are kind of just rising as they have for a very, very long time.  If the estimates can't even hit the low side, what does that really say about the reality of man caused global warming vs what we are being told?  Again, falling short of the low end estimate literally means no acceleration.....  and you just admitted that current estimates appear to fall short of the 1' rise.  Food for thought and maybe a catalyst to some deeper thinking on the subject.

[MasterStache]

BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.

Already have.

Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?

I see you have admitted defeat.  Thank you.

And for what it's worth:

https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/

From the sources provided in your own link: "contrary to the assertions of Polar Bear Specialist Group scientists, Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations have not been declining but are stable."

2 obvious points stand out:
1. They examined only 2 sub-groups of polar bears, not the entire population.
2. The conclusion was "stable" not an increase (as you suggested). Actually it was only "likely stable" for one subpopulation.

This is a good read if you think think bears are thriving in the Baffin Bay region (FYI it's a published paper, not a link to a biased media site like the Daily Caller):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809