___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Oh look, it's emo-Hal whining about how nobody understands his "art"

Oh no! Fuck, you suck.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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).

I don't doubt the relationship. I only mean to suggest that merely returning some CO2 to whence it came is unlikely to produce a climate much different than the Earth has seen in the past--a climate in which life thrived, arguably much more so than in the Earth's present climate.

quote:

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.

Well, it would suggest that if we knew that it was a phenomenon we wanted to hinder, rather than encourage. However, evidence of its existence alone doesn't even tell us whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.

quote:

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.

Well, that's the information that we'd ideally like to have available to us. Obviously, it's not all going to be forthcoming.

I'm not suggesting that, therefore, we should abandon trying to address the issue at all. Rather, I'm saying that in order to address the issue meaningfully, we have to step out of the cocoon of a relatively narrow scientific consensus and consider broader issues on which there is not yet any consensus and may never be. We have to tackle thorny questions of fact with information that is far less than what we'd like it to be (to say nothing of many highly subjective questions of valuation).

It's not enough to say: "Climate change is occurring, and our CO2 emissions are contributing to it, therefore we should implement policy X to reduce them." That is a non sequitur. There are arguments worth hearing on the subject, but they have to go further than that and address why a given policy is likely to achieve its objective, what that objective is, and why that objective is one worth pursuing. But no one seems to be making them.

The political and social dialogue on this issue is a wasteland, even by the low standards I've come to expect in such venues. It seems that almost everyone either denies that the phenomenon exists or believes that it does exist and thinks that's the end of the enquiry when it's only just the beginning. It's that attitude that's incredibly frustrating to me.

quote:

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?

It's on the details that there is no consensus and little evidence. An analogous situation would be if all economic experts agreed that housing prices were falling, but they didn't agree how much they were falling by, what the effects would be, or what could be done about it.

So, it's correct to say there's a consensus, but it's a very narrow one and it doesn't really extend to enough information to be useful.

quote:

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.

What I mean is that it would be great if we could slow the process without actually trying to stop it. The long-term climate might be superior, but getting there would be less harmful if the process were more gradual. I don't put much stock in the natural/unnatural distinction in this context or any other.

"Natural" phenomena that are believed to have influenced past climate changes are numerous. Some of them are very gradual; others are sudden and catastrophic. We're likely to fall somewhere in the middle, with effects falling somewhere in the middle. I think that's okay, but probably not ideal. I'm skeptical that we can do much about it, though.

Climate change aside, it's probably a good idea to stop polluting the earth.

___________________
Nothing to see here

i found this article interesting

A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs

quote:

"Evaluations of several energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the RGGI participating states indicate that these programs provide $3-$4 in savings for every dollar invested. When macroeconomic benefits are considered, the benefits are even greater." ... "At the household and business level, energy efficiency investments enhance consumers’ control over their energy use, typically reducing energy bills by 15 to 30 percent."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rea...eigh-costs.html

___________________

Ooh, another climate change thread on a forum!

quote:

It's not enough to say: "Climate change is occurring, and our CO2 emissions are contributing to it, therefore we should implement policy X to reduce them." That is a non sequitur. There are arguments worth hearing on the subject, but they have to go further than that and address why a given policy is likely to achieve its objective, what that objective is, and why that objective is one worth pursuing. But no one seems to be making them. The political and social dialogue on this issue is a wasteland, even by the low standards I've come to expect in such venues. It seems that almost everyone either denies that the phenomenon exists or believes that it does exist and thinks that's the end of the enquiry when it's only just the beginning. It's that attitude that's incredibly frustrating to me.

My thoughts are similar to the above. We need to have an objective and some idea as to what exactly we want to achieve.

We want to advance the human race, but at the same time preserve the earth and its wildlife. For self-preservation this means adapting to new circumstances instead of trying to continue as we are, whilst using Prius' to ease our guilt. Preserving our earth and wildlife must be tackled as a separate issue through conservation. I believe we can develop and not have to plunder the earth in order to do so.

It is of course hardly the easiest objective to achieve, but an objective nonetheless.

However, as someone has already mentioned, overpopulation of the earth is a far more pressing issue, and is a contributing factor to climate change, so tackling that would help us to kill two birds with one stone (an ironic expression, considering the subject).

Last edited by fleec on Oct-29-2011 at 22:54