|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Denial would require more knowledge than I can attest to. The limitations within which climate research takes place require a healthy dose of skepticism. However, that does not mean that it cannot produce persuasive evidence. Indeed, I would say that it has produced persuasive--even compelling--evidence as to the question of the existence of climate change as a phenomenon and the general role of human activity in bringing it about. |
Oh ok. it’s just the last post from you I remember on the topic doubted that returning CO2 from whence it came was much of a problem. I inferred from that post that you doubted the relationship between green house gases and their role in trapping solar radiation in the atmosphere, a process that, as far as I am aware, is well understood and predicted by the laws of physics (I wouldn’t know, I am merely parroting).
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
But that proposition, which is the subject of such intense focus, is relatively meaningless standing on its own. Without more, it provides us with no information about how we ought to respond to the phenomenon, assuming that it is occurring. |
Doesn’t it suggest that reducing CO2 emissions is the first place to start? Obviously it doesn’t suggest how to reduce said emissions, but I’m not sure that’s particularly relevant, as we know which ones are currently available to us.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
In order to make an informed decision, we would want to know whether, in fact, we can realistically prevent climate change, and, if so, what it would require for us to do so. Alternately, we may be able to affect the magnitude of its effects or the rate at which they occur; here, too, we would want to know precisely what present actions would produce precisely what future effect.
Even that would be insufficient, however. Unless we also know to precisely what climate to which we are changing and precisely how the change will proceed, it's impossible to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the different possible climates that our present choices could produce over time. |
But this practically ensures no effort to make decisions at all, because absent another earth to experiment on, the kind of precision you believe is required is simply impossible. It’s basically “this problem is too hard, let’s throw our hands up and give up”. Not that I am advocating extreme reforms or anything, I really don’t care because it won’t be much of a problem for me. But simply as an analytical position, it doesn’t seem to serve much utility other than to support the status quo, when you even admit that it could be a problem.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Much is made of the "scientific consensus" that climate change exists and that humanity is playing a substantial role in it. But without a similar consensus as to all of these critical ancillary questions, consensus as to those general propositions of climate change is completely and utterly meaningless. And, indeed, there is no consensus and only meager evidence with respect to the details. |
Do you mean there is no consensus on the ancillary questions and only meagre evidence with respect to the details? Or are you referring to the scientific consensus here?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
So, speculate I have, and the tentative conclusions that I have reached are that (1) efforts to prevent climate change are futile and wasteful; and (2) furthermore, they would be undesirable even if they might succeed because the climate we would likely be moving towards is on balance superior to the Earth's current climate; but (3) the rate of change is probably far faster than would be optimal, so it would be a good idea to try to slow the process, provided that the cost of doing so is not excessive; but (4) the prospects for achieving a significant rate reduction in a cost-effective manner are generally poor, barring a fortuitous technological advancement that substantially reduces our reliance on fossil fuels. |
I don’t see how you can hold 2 and 3 simultaneously. The very fact that things are arguably moving too fast, (specifically for the adaptation of species and various eco-systems) suggests that for a fairly significant transitory period, the climate would be significantly inferior to a warmer climate achieved via natural processes. Number 4 is a no-brainer.
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
You're very good at shrouding simplistic positions with torrents of cleverly-written bullshit. |
but isn't it just a pleasure to read? 
___________________
|
