Global Warming, Rising Seas, and Solutions

[Tee Kay]

Of course. I never once claimed we shouldn't improve our impact upon the planet. The healthier we are as people, the healthier the planet is. I just don't understand why people treat climate change like a problem to be solved.

Because what is usually referred to as "climate change", that is, due to increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is anthropogenic, thus we actually have some level of control over its course and direction.

Wikipedia proves the first two are definitely not myths. The United States is not the world's worst polluter. Hasn't been for a while. The United States is also not the worst polluter per capita. Surprise! Last time I checked, that was Guyana. (the title of worst polluter per capita changes frequently, Qatar and Belize being a couple of other title holders, but the U.S. has not held this dubious title in recent history)

And while my claim #3 is an educated guess, recent events such as China's and India's nose-thumbing at the Kyoto Protocol, prove that they're not going to "change course" any time soon unless a figurative gun is held to their heads. Got any evidence to refute that? Nope. There isn't any.

It is really hard to argue with someone who fails reading comprehension. When have I claimed that the United States is the world's worst polluter, per capita or otherwise.

I'll play along. According to Wikipedia, Belize is the worst "polluter" per capita as of AD2000, though this includes land-use changes (eg deforestation), which has a margin of error of up to 150%. Sans deforestation, the top of the list includes small petrostates like Qatar, which isn't surprising. The United States ranked 7th out of 185 countries, and 14th even including land-use changes, which isn't a stellar performance by any measure, worst than any other large country except Australia and Canada. Overall, China releases more CO2 than the United States, but American per capita emissions is more than three times that of China, and more than 12 times that of India (and also twice that of the European Union, and 80% more than Japan).

So Wikipedia in fact proved that the first two myths are, well, myths.

The only countries which could be argued to have nose-thumbed the Kyoto Protocol are Australia, Canada, and the United States. Both China and India treats climate change as national security issues; unsurprising since both countries will lose the most from a warmer climate.

 

[Arwon]

I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I think you're in lala land if you believe any universal agreement will appear magically tomorrow, next year, 5 years, whenever. None of the big players are going to deliberately cripple their economies whilst the climate keeps going the way it has for the last 15 years.

You're setting too high a bar with the word "universal" (that's a strawman - it's not the goal, it's not needed and it's not possible). And you're dramatically overstating the costs of climate change mitigation.

 

[Dale]

Also, the slow melting of mountain glaciers provides drinking water to a large portion of the population. What happens when those glaciers disappear?

They die. Isn't that what you alarmists are after anyways? Cripple civilization, technology and kill off 80% of the world's population to live in Utopia?

No one has ever presented a warming scenario that I have ever seen where warming means anything other than less water for human use.

The Jurassic. Warmer, more humid, higher CO2 than now, and a jungle planet with lots of precipitation and planetary life was more abundant.

 

[Dale]

You're setting too high a bar with the word "universal" (that's a strawman - it's not the goal, it's not needed and it's not possible). And you're dramatically overstating the costs of climate change mitigation.

Uh.... WTH? If you leave some countries (let me guess, the poor ones?) free to emit whatever the hell they want, and make the other countries (let me guess, the rich ones?) then all you are doing is promoting wealth distribution and watermelon doctrine. Though from previous conversations you've made this blatantly obvious in the past that you're a watermelon.

So without universal change you'll always face that accusation.

 

[Arwon]

Less than 100% effectiveness is not 0% effectiveness, not matter how much you engage in namecalling.

 

[wolfigor]

have a look at this website:
http://flood.firetree.net/

you can set the appropriate sea level rise (from 0 to +60 meters) and see the results on google maps.

 

[Dale]

Less than 100% effectiveness is not 0% effectiveness, not matter how much you engage in namecalling.

What's the point of acting if US, China and India don't reduce? They are currently over 50% of global emissions. If what pro-AGW "scientists" say is true, then universal reductions are required.

Oh and btw, watermelon is not name-calling, it's an ideology. It's Green-Socialism. It's on the same level as calling someone a Fascist or "denier" or "alarmist".

 

[CavLancer]

I LOVE watermelon. Can I be a watermelon, p l e a s e ?

Seems there's so much serious stuff out there to be dramatic about, chemtrails, Phoenix Lights, the huge hexagon in the polar gasses of Jupiter, and 2012. Oh hell I forgot where I was going...

Oh yes, so why worry about something so absurd as a little bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere of this planet? The only thing it really does is provide government grants to data manipulating "scientists" for some reason to bizarre to contemplate. No, focus instead upon the Yeti, that most worthy of gigantic hairy bipeds. It has a greater possibility of actually existing, and could eat your dog one night if you're not careful. Join your neighborhood Yeti Watch and be a part of the solution!

 

[Murky]

They die. Isn't that what you alarmists are after anyways? Cripple civilization, technology and kill off 80% of the world's population to live in Utopia?

Why do you keep using strawman arguments? When did I say we have to cripple civilization, technology and kill of 80% of the worlds population to live in Utopia? I've said repeatedly that we can save more lives and advance technology at the same time as reducing emissions. Environmentalism isn't some nefarious plot to kill people or impose communism or some other conspiracy. It's about saving the world, not destroying it. When will you wake up to reality?

The Jurassic. Warmer, more humid, higher CO2 than now, and a jungle planet with lots of precipitation and planetary life was more abundant.

We live in a different time.

 

[BasketCase]

We live in a different time.

Doesn't matter. The reason Dale brought up the Jurassic in the first place is because it shows that warmer climate doesn't mean less water. Rather the opposite, in fact. And the Jurassic isn't the only time that happened. The Paleocene did the same thing: warmer than today (a LOT warmer!) yet there was no tundra, almost no deserts, and no water shortages. The fact that it has happened (at least twice) throws a serious monkey wrench in the standard global warming alarmist boilerplate.

 

[Winner]

Well, the Dutch and the Danes should really start investing in real estate further inland, preferably as far away from the sea as possible

This is about the maximum water level rise that's possible (this is NOT going to happen due to human-accelerated global warming, not in the next million years):

Central Europe is the place to go

 

[El_Machinae]

They die. Isn't that what you alarmists are after anyways? Cripple civilization, technology and kill off 80% of the world's population to live in Utopia?

:wave:

No! Not at all. The costs of mitigation are very small, on a relative scale. You should know this, because it's been mentioned many times.

How can I trust you in a scientific discussion (which, honestly, I was) when you so sorely misunderstand the people you're talking to? How can I trust you're understanding general scientific communications, if you're not following communications directed at you?

If your summary of (your understanding of) the science is within 80% of your summary of Arwon's position, then it's likely completely wrong.

 

[Arwon]

The only thing it really does is provide government grants to data manipulating "scientists" for some reason to bizarre to contemplate.

I seriously can't fathom the mindset that thinks the giant scientistic conspiracy theory is a sensible viewpoint. I'm sorry, I just can't.

 

[Cutlass]

I seriously can't fathom the mindset that thinks the giant scientistic conspiracy theory is a sensible viewpoint. I'm sorry, I just can't.

Because it's not. It is so far beyond ridiculous that it clearly cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Dale]

:wave:

No! Not at all. The costs of mitigation are very small, on a relative scale. You should know this, because it's been mentioned many times.

How can I trust you in a scientific discussion (which, honestly, I was) when you so sorely misunderstand the people you're talking to? How can I trust you're understanding general scientific communications, if you're not following communications directed at you?

If your summary of (your understanding of) the science is within 80% of your summary of Arwon's position, then it's likely completely wrong.

Let's just say that Arwon has previously in a previous thread in a previous discussion has made very clear that he follows the Australian Greens. And the Australian Greens (ie: Bob Brown and Meg Lee and Sarah Hanson-Young) have made it very clear in interviews, op-eds and Parliament that they believe civilization as it is will destroy the earth, and to get to a point where humanity is sustainable they must reduce industrialisation, reduce population, reduce democracy (to force people to be sustainable) and join a One World Government. I won't bother citing because these policies are very clearly publicly stated over the years by those three people.

Where is my statement incorrect about Arwon?

I seriously can't fathom the mindset that thinks the giant scientistic conspiracy theory is a sensible viewpoint. I'm sorry, I just can't.

Because it's not. It is so far beyond ridiculous that it clearly cannot be taken seriously.

Governments are spending many billions per year on any person who says, "global warming, grant me and I'll show you!" They are hiring alarmists into highly paid Government jobs to dictate to the Government just what watermelon policies to put in place (ie: Tim Flannery of the Australian Climate Change Commission, and CSIRO and BOM).

If you put an advocate of one direction into that sort of position, they'll only tell the Government to create policies based on their extremism. The same could be said if you put a sceptic alarmist in, you would only get policies in the opposite direction. Governments should be placing complete neutrals in those positions, and at best, an economist and statistician. But definitely NOT an extremist ideological fanatic.

But to the point, if it's only possible to pick up grants by advocating one message and all other messages do not get grants, and scientists need to put food on the table and pay bills too, then they're going to go where the money is. And then you get such stupid studies like 'aliens going to destroy us due to climate change' or 'obesity is a cause of climate change'. Another symptom is scientists spend more and more time defaming opposite views and staunchly defending their position as the only position, instead of the true scientific method of testing their own theories against different positions and engaging scientists with other views. You don't see that in climate science, all you see is staunch defense, libel and legal action against journals and editors, and defamation against any other view than their own. That's not science, that's defense of the cash cow.

So hopefully you can see why the average Joe can start thinking there's something wrong going on here, which eventually leads to some sort of collaboration on the message.

 

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Silurian
Are you proposing that the US invade Israel and Jordan and flood the Jordan valley up to sea level. You know that would flood the whole valley nearly to Lebanon

Yeah, thats what I'm proposing.
...

The trouble is that the Jordan valley does not have enough volume to take a significant portion of Jordan and Israels (0.19%) share of the worlds oceans.

I suppose they could take some of the USAs water if the US would allow Jordan and Israel to pump another 3m of the ocean over Kansas.

 

[Cutlass]

Let's just say that Arwon has previously in a previous thread in a previous discussion has made very clear that he follows the Australian Greens. And the Australian Greens (ie: Bob Brown and Meg Lee and Sarah Hanson-Young) have made it very clear in interviews, op-eds and Parliament that they believe civilization as it is will destroy the earth, and to get to a point where humanity is sustainable they must reduce industrialisation, reduce population, reduce democracy (to force people to be sustainable) and join a One World Government. I won't bother citing because these policies are very clearly publicly stated over the years by those three people.

Where is my statement incorrect about Arwon?





Governments are spending many billions per year on any person who says, "global warming, grant me and I'll show you!" They are hiring alarmists into highly paid Government jobs to dictate to the Government just what watermelon policies to put in place (ie: Tim Flannery of the Australian Climate Change Commission, and CSIRO and BOM).

If you put an advocate of one direction into that sort of position, they'll only tell the Government to create policies based on their extremism. The same could be said if you put a sceptic alarmist in, you would only get policies in the opposite direction. Governments should be placing complete neutrals in those positions, and at best, an economist and statistician. But definitely NOT an extremist ideological fanatic.

But to the point, if it's only possible to pick up grants by advocating one message and all other messages do not get grants, and scientists need to put food on the table and pay bills too, then they're going to go where the money is. And then you get such stupid studies like 'aliens going to destroy us due to climate change' or 'obesity is a cause of climate change'. Another symptom is scientists spend more and more time defaming opposite views and staunchly defending their position as the only position, instead of the true scientific method of testing their own theories against different positions and engaging scientists with other views. You don't see that in climate science, all you see is staunch defense, libel and legal action against journals and editors, and defamation against any other view than their own. That's not science, that's defense of the cash cow.

So hopefully you can see why the average Joe can start thinking there's something wrong going on here, which eventually leads to some sort of collaboration on the message.

So the same US government that blocked Kyoto is also the same government that is the primary funder of the AGW conspiracy. Do you have any concept at all how ridiculous that sounds? It doesn't sound even the smallest shred of remotely possible, not to mention probable. This is Birther level stuff.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'll be interested to see independent research comparing the amount of cash given to Warmists and Denialists from different sources. For now I'll just make an educated guess that it's rather more profitable to support the proposition that helps giant multinational fossil fuel barons and other polluters continue making money.

 

[El_Machinae]

An incredible number of climate-based studies aren't really what you'd call 'warmist'. They're just reporting their data in peer-reviewed journals, and then moving on to the next dataset. There's a very shrill argument being had, but it's undertaken only by a minority of scientists.

 

[Tee Kay]

But if we can't label people into two mutually irreconcilably hostile camps, then sanity wins.