Climate Change - Page 71 - Politics and Economics

You didn't even argue the truth of my statement, but rather just argued that its probably unpopular with regard to people who remain unconvinced. And this is exactly the problem with climate truthers. You not happening to like something doesn't mean it's not true.

The truth has no obligation to market itself in popular ways to ignoramuses. Sorry.

06-12-2014 , 01:50 PM

#1752

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,986

I think about a dozen of us predicted the GOP stance would shift from 1) not happening to 2) happening but we don't know why to 3) happening and we know why but it's too late to do anything except mitigation. We are in phase 2 right now.

06-12-2014 , 02:08 PM

#1753

shorn7

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantaz

Actually, seems like it would be hard to prove that the earth will be in "certain ruin" at some point in time due to man made climate change. If you could actually prove that, you would be a very wealthy man.

And reading comprehension FTW...I agreed that there is climate change happening so it has nothing to do with me not liking something.

Ignoramuses are the one's who, like chicken little, claim the sky is falling and something MUST BE DONE, but don't stop to consider the consequences of these solutions nor the actual costs associated with them. Cliffs: Ignoramuses are not me.

06-12-2014 , 02:09 PM

#1754

Fantaz

adept

Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 956

Phase 2 is more like ... "OK its happening.. BUT GOD DAMMIT I DONT LIKE THIS SO ITS NOT HAPPENING NOW"

06-12-2014 , 02:12 PM

#1755

Fantaz

adept

Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 956

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorn7

Ignoramuses are the one's who, like chicken little, claim the sky is falling and something MUST BE DONE, but don't stop to consider the consequences of these solutions nor the actual costs associated with them.

And exactly what evidence is it that you have that I haven't considered the consequences of using resources to curb AGW? Let me guess, the only evidence you have that I "haven't considered the consequences of AGW solutions" is the fact that I haven't dismissed said solutions outright, like you.

06-12-2014 , 02:19 PM

#1756

shorn7

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantaz

I notice nothing about cost in your quote. Guess that doesn't matter....oh that's right, it will only be $500/year/person in lost cheeseburgers. Love to see the math behind that estimate. I am sure you have it too.

06-12-2014 , 02:30 PM

#1757

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorn7

A lot of this thread has not been about whether their is climate change or not...there is, every day in the past and will be every day in the future. The real questions appear to be (1) how much of the change is really occurring due to human use of fossil fuel versus forces we cannot control, (2) can we practically do something to change the trajectory, and (3) what is the cost/benefit of doing so.

After reading this whole thread and reviewing all the data presented here, I simply cannot say that the answers to 1&2 are definitively "a lot" and "yes". Without those answers, any answer to # 3 is pure speculation and therefore unreliable.

Experts in the field (and science in general) come to a very different conclusion regarding 1 & 2. For instance, there is no evidence that points to natural factors in the warming seen since 1950.

And of course 3 is not pure speculation, not even close.

06-12-2014 , 02:31 PM

#1758

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantaz

If we continue down the same path ruin is certain. Without changes the planet will slowly become more and more like venus and less habitable. If you don't know enough to realize that, or you simply don't care and want to be able to have your resources to buy hamburgers and potato chips with, that is certainly not a fault of mine.

Maybe you should try reading through actual data and science to form your opinion on important subjects, instead of reading what poker forums have to say about it and remaining unconvinced that you need to let go of your hamburgers and potato chips.

Lol Venus. Ignorance is fun

06-12-2014 , 02:31 PM

#1759

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

And Venus is a terrible analogy since it is impossible for Earth to experience a runaway greenhouse effect.

06-12-2014 , 02:35 PM

#1760

Fantaz

adept

Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 956

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorn7

I noticed nothing about science in this post. You must not know any science.

06-12-2014 , 03:31 PM

#1761

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantaz

I noticed nothing about science in this post. You must not know any science.

Come on man you just made a Venus comparison.

The cost/benefit of AGW interventions is something that absolutely has to be addressed. You surely don't think otherwise correct?

06-12-2014 , 04:12 PM

#1762

Cuban B

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,765

It is a good sign that climate truthers are moving on to concern trolling over the cost of doing anything. So we can at least now agree that we should put some price on carbon emissions and that the market works best at innovating when given a price incentive to do so?

06-12-2014 , 04:15 PM

#1763

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

RE: Price on carbon emissions

Depends. Probably not.

06-12-2014 , 04:20 PM

#1764

shorn7

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuban B

Well, "putting" a price on carbon isn't exactly letting the market innovate (see farm subsidies). But, in theory I agree that allowing the market to determine what is the best energy source is fine.

06-12-2014 , 04:20 PM

#1765

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorn7

Well, "putting" a price on carbon isn't exactly letting the market innovate (see farm subsidies). But, in theory I agree that allowing the market to determine what is the best energy source is fine.

That's not what he's proposing obviously.

06-12-2014 , 04:24 PM

#1766

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,003

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuban B

It is a good sign that climate truthers are moving on to concern trolling over the cost of doing anything...

You're discounting the fact that the climate truthers have no problem shamelessly shifting back to denying the science when it suits them.

06-12-2014 , 04:27 PM

#1767

shorn7

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

That's not what he's proposing obviously.

I know, but that is really what should happen.

06-12-2014 , 04:28 PM

#1768

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

You're discounting the fact that the climate truthers have no problem shamelessly shifting back to denying the science when it suits them.

Right, and fracking/natural gas/nuclear? Oh that's right.

06-12-2014 , 04:33 PM

#1769

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,003

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Right, and fracking/natural gas/nuclear? Oh that's right.

Antarctic ice levels at an all-time high!

06-12-2014 , 04:42 PM

#1770

Cuban B

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorn7

Well, "putting" a price on carbon isn't exactly letting the market innovate (see farm subsidies). But, in theory I agree that allowing the market to determine what is the best energy source is fine.

What, how are farm subsidies even comparable? Was there not a price on food before the farm subsidies? Because without government forcing some kind of price on carbon it is free for industry to dump billions and billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is zero market incentive to reduce those emissions without pricing CO2 in some way.

Last edited by Cuban B; 06-12-2014 at 04:50 PM.

06-12-2014 , 05:18 PM

#1771

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

I don't even understand what these guys are talking about wrt markets. Markets are terrible at tragedy of the commons scenarios like global warming and they are not going to magically "innovate" if left alone. The market would get it wrong even if the future cost of current emissions was exactly known.

06-12-2014 , 05:35 PM

#1772

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,986

If only Easter Islanders had free markets - they wouldn't have cut down all their trees.

06-12-2014 , 10:06 PM

#1773

np1235711

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantaz

If we continue down the same path ruin is certain. Without changes the planet will slowly become more and more like venus and less habitable. If you don't know enough to realize that, or you simply don't care and want to be able to have your resources to buy hamburgers and potato chips with, that is certainly not a fault of mine.

Maybe you should try reading through actual data and science to form your opinion on important subjects, instead of reading what poker forums have to say about it and remaining unconvinced that you need to let go of your hamburgers and potato chips.

Actual Data:

Venus CO2 = 96.5%

Earth CO2 = 0.04%

Fine analogy son!

06-12-2014 , 11:18 PM

#1774

Dutch101

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,993

If you realize where coal and oil come from then it is obvious there will never be a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere by plants to begin with. Higher temperatures in itself are probably not even that much of a problem. The problem is that the change in temperature could be too fast for us to adapt.