Global warming strikes again...

[DaggerDigwillow]

Its easy to find a humane and realistic solution when you permit yourself the use of technology on the level of magic. Best practice would be to have this technology in hand before chiding others for not using it.

Last I checked walking isn't magic and it doesn't cost anything. I speak with some authority on the matter. (Feel free to check out my story in the reasonable wage forum)

Regarding technology, I'd encourage you to actually read what I wrote. I didn't say technology. You magically seem to have come up with that word on your own. The transformation of poverty into wealth mechanism is capitalism via property and intellectual rights and this has been going on for decades at an unbelievably successful rate pulling billions of people out of poverty. Some of that is technology but it isn't magic.
I'd encourage you to read two books as an introduction to the facts.
Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker
The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley

 

[Senethro]

Last I checked walking isn't magic and it doesn't cost anything. I speak with some authority on the matter. (Feel free to check out my story in the reasonable wage forum)

Regarding technology, I'd encourage you to actually read what I wrote. I didn't say technology. You magically seem to have come up with that word on your own. The transformation of poverty into wealth mechanism is capitalism via property and intellectual rights and this has been going on for decades at an unbelievably successful rate pulling billions of people out of poverty. Some of that is technology but it isn't magic.
I'd encourage you to read two books as an introduction to the facts.
Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker
The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley

They require cheap, available energy, which necessarily means novel technology.

As for global warming even if the worst projections possible are off by a factor of about 400% with temperatures over the next 100 years increasing world temperatures by about 16 degrees and water levels by 20 feet it would have exactly zero significance of an effect on human survivability and expansion. People would merely move to colder climates, and higher elevations, run their air conditioners more, produce more electricity, and go on with life with little-to-no care. Fortunately, it looks very much as if the climate is not changing at nearly the rate of previous predictions which have been wrong over and over and over again to the point that most people who believe in the accuracy of climate predictions should be viewed for the skepticism attributable to soothsayers, religious zealots, and end of the world street bums. If you think the world is going to end because of climate change you are about as informed as the local religious congregation claiming it will end with the return of Jesus next week or space aliens tomorrow. Read the IPCC's pop a Xanax stop getting your info from media sites trying to sell clicks. Just kick back and chill out. You'll be fine.

Lets not forget that you're also the guy who said the above.

You can verbally browbeat people on an internet forum very successfully I'm sure, but I don't think you can explain why scientists and policymakers don't act like your position is true (even though the range of actual responses of the latter are frequently cynical).

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

They require cheap, available energy, which necessarily means novel technology.

What in cheap and available energy translates to you as novel technology? Wood is cheap and available energy, coal is cheap and available energy, oil is cheap and available energy. None of which requires "novel technology." I honestly don't know where you come up with some of your statements as some of them don't even seem to be logically consistent even within the same sentence.

Lets not forget that you're also the guy who said the above.

Yes, yes I did and I still do standing by everything I said. Was there something in there that you disagree with? Did you even read the IPCC report? I believe they are correct in their assessment of the problem. Among the many, many peer-reviewed journals and articles since the literature review performed by the IPCC and those following the report here is just one picked at random.

"While global sea levels rose 7.5 inches (0.19 meters) between 1901 and 2010, 30 the IPCC estimates sea levels will rise as much as 2.2 feet (0.66 meters) by 2100 in its medium scenario, and by 2.7 feet (0.83 meters) in its high-end scenario. Even if these predictions prove to be significant underestimates, the slow pace of sea level rise will likely allow societies ample time for adaptation" - Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Quin, Gian-Kasper Plattner et al.

What amazes me about people getting a beat down intellectually on an internet forum is their propensity to continue coming back for more when they couldn't handle what they were attempting to dish out the first time. I realize that comes across as harsh but you've engaged pretty flippantly throughout this process. Allow me to extend an olive branch in saying I'm more than happy to have a good-faith discussion with you and provide education on the topic from my views as well as hear you out on your own but this snickering heel-biting needs to stop on your end. Just to be clear it isn't "my position" that leaders and policymakers "don't agree on" it is the position of the UN climate panel which I do agree with so thanks for trying to attribute their work to me. Also in the words of the IPCC scientists themselves, they explain that they have been misunderstood and taken out of context by activists pushing pseudoscientific claims. Which you would know if you read the report, the books, the interviews, or the statements from these scientists themselves.

I don't think you can explain why scientists and policymakers don't act like your position is true

“For some reason, the media latched onto the twelve years (2030), presumably because they thought that it helped to get across the message of how quickly we are approaching this and hence how urgently we need action. Unfortunately, this has led to a complete mischaracterization of what the report said.” - Andrea Dutton

I would be happy to explain this to you from multiple perspectives historically, economically, and politically. Although, at some point I'd ask that you actually start to research these things yourself. The investment in lobbying by oil companies to place pressure on world leaders to maintain their dominance on the energy sectors not only mirrors the history of coal transitions to oil but from an economic and political standpoint even the federal reserve petrodollar dominance in both our economic and socio-political decisions by policymakers in the US as the world's preeminent superpower. Suffice to say even without the overwhelming amount of misinformation and cultural support for that misinformation championed by social celebrities (See examples like Greta Thunberg or Leonardo Decaprio) there are compelling national interests from around the globe to maintain that status quo.

 

[Arakhor]

How exactly is the notorious fossil fuel  coal the answer to global warming?

 

[Senethro]

What in cheap and available energy translates to you as novel technology? Wood is cheap and available energy, coal is cheap and available energy, oil is cheap and available energy. None of which requires "novel technology." I honestly don't know where you come up with some of your statements as some of them don't even seem to be logically consistent even within the same sentence.

Yes, yes I did and I still do standing by everything I said. Was there something in there that you disagree with? Did you even read the IPCC report? I believe they are correct in their assessment of the problem. Among the many, many peer-reviewed journals and articles since the literature review performed by the IPCC and those following the report here is just one picked at random.

"While global sea levels rose 7.5 inches (0.19 meters) between 1901 and 2010, 30 the IPCC estimates sea levels will rise as much as 2.2 feet (0.66 meters) by 2100 in its medium scenario, and by 2.7 feet (0.83 meters) in its high-end scenario. Even if these predictions prove to be significant underestimates, the slow pace of sea level rise will likely allow societies ample time for adaptation" - Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Quin, Gian-Kasper Plattner et al.

What amazes me about people getting a beat down intellectually on an internet forum is their propensity to continue coming back for more when they couldn't handle what they were attempting to dish out the first time. I realize that comes across as harsh but you've engaged pretty flippantly throughout this process. Allow me to extend an olive branch in saying I'm more than happy to have a good-faith discussion with you and provide education on the topic from my views as well as hear you out on your own but this snickering heel-biting needs to stop on your end. Just to be clear it isn't "my position" that leaders and policymakers "don't agree on" it is the position of the UN climate panel which I do agree with so thanks for trying to attribute their work to me. Also in the words of the IPCC scientists themselves, they explain that they have been misunderstood and taken out of context by activists pushing pseudoscientific claims. Which you would know if you read the report, the books, the interviews, or the statements from these scientists themselves.

“For some reason, the media latched onto the twelve years (2030), presumably because they thought that it helped to get across the message of how quickly we are approaching this and hence how urgently we need action. Unfortunately, this has led to a complete mischaracterization of what the report said.” - Andrea Dutton

I would be happy to explain this to you from multiple perspectives historically, economically, and politically. Although, at some point I'd ask that you actually start to research these things yourself. The investment in lobbying by oil companies to place pressure on world leaders to maintain their dominance on the energy sectors not only mirrors the history of coal transitions to oil but from an economic and political standpoint even the federal reserve petrodollar dominance in both our economic and socio-political decisions by policymakers in the US as the world's preeminent superpower. Suffice to say even without the overwhelming amount of misinformation and cultural support for that misinformation championed by social celebrities (See examples like Greta Thunberg or Leonardo Decaprio) there are compelling national interests from around the globe to maintain that status quo.

Few questions. They're big and unreasonable, but they're so big they keep me from engaging in the details.

If replacement of infrastructure and resettling of people is easy and cheap such that we can hope to out-grow climate change, then how come we are not successfully outgrowing the present by an order of magnitude? This is doubly problematic if you're making the claim we can use existing technology.

What self organizing or emergent process is causing many world leaders (and media, etc) to all act in a coordinated manner in this mass deception? This is bigger than the US.

 

[El_Machinae]

that they will remain poor and rooted in their location causing them to drown.

Property is owned and there are territorial borders. The risk isn't so much of drowning, which will be a strawman of any of the reasonable conversations, the risk is that people will move because they have become increasingly relatively impoverished and thus their migration will be unwelcome or according to the wishes of people who don't have to move.

And let's not ignore that xenophobia correlates with AGW denial.

The people who eroded the shoreline will have the wealth, and they *will not* compensate the people whose wealth/opportunity was eroded by the process nor voluntarily provide for the people who have been impoverished by the process. Aggregate wealth can increase if we spend the fossil carbon correctly ( it will decrease if we don't!), but the way that we currently assign property means that anybody forced to move could really suffer.

I have a local example, where we have a national park which has try to capture a local ecosystem in its natural state by being big enough. It is surrounded by monoculture. As climes shift, the species will have nowhere to go where they won't be poisoned as a nuisance to the owners of the monoculture crop.

Climate refugees will be more clever, but will have to debase themselves for the mere permission to even move into the territories of the people who eroded theirs. My first sentence is a very tight summary.

Obviously there can be an aggregate wealth transfer such that the need to move can be mitigated through infrastructure development. But again, the people who are creating the cost will be foisting that cost onto the people damaged.

Even that description presumes that we can pay their invoices out of the profits of our carbon consumption. Even that limits the discussion. Because it doesn't even consider paying for the mitigation ahead of time, before the damage. And we won't pay the invoices, let's not kid ourselves.

This is all ignoring the fact that there are many intersecting reasons where the risk of ecological damage can grow, thus creating a stochastic risk pattern. Ecological and biological systems have a remarkable ability to bounce back, but extinctions are one way trips.

Wealth is such a generic word that you can always use it to describe the mitigation of a problem, but unless there is sufficient investment of that wealth, I actually don't believe the people who talk about it - presuming that they don't actually believe in it, they're just using it to kick the can down the road. Encouraging trend lines are encouraging, but there is a lot of eggs being counted as chickens.

If the wealthy are the most capable of not foisting, but they are, then you know there's an imbalance in the entire setup.

How exactly is the notorious fossil fuel  coal the answer to global warming?

The people who burned too much coal burned it in such a way as to create Innovations so that regions that had not yet burned too much coal had a viable alternative that was affordable before they were even tempted to burn coal.

Duh!

 

[Lexicus]

I wonder if it's possible to change the laws of thermodynamics by reading enough propaganda books?

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

The risk isn't so much of drowning, which will be a strawman of any of the reasonable conversation

It is the unreasonable conversations that I am concerned with and addressing.

the risk is that people will move because they have become increasingly relatively impoverished

Caused by what? I'm not overly concerned about the impoverished along most coastlines in modernized countries. It is the impoverished in unmodernized countries hence the need to modernize them and create wealth.

And let's not ignore that xenophobia correlates with AGW denial.

That sounds like a heck of a loaded statement if I ever heard one. Exactly how are you drawing the cart before the horse in this conclusion?

The people who eroded the shoreline will have the wealth

Yes, I also find it true to be the case that most of the people with wealth also own the shoreline. Should they be compensated as well or does your charity with other people's funds only run in one direction? How exactly are you proposing we handle this differently than we always have?

the people who are creating the cost will be foisting that cost onto the people damaged.

Who are we talking about here? Who decided to live on the coast? Who is to blame for a billionaire building a resort on the edge of the sea? How about a Vietnamese fishing village? Does Bangladesh get reimbursed for implementing a levee system? How about Norway? Does the fact that the US has more coastline than both of them combined mean they should be paying the US? Under this logic should others be forced to pay for the increased cost of electric bills when they vote against energy production thus raising the costs? Where exactly does this logic end cause I could always get in better shape but the prohibitive cost of a personal trainer is imposing on me the inability to hire one so maybe everyone hiring personal trainers should subsidize mine? Hopefully, at some point, we can agree upon the absurdity of this reasoning. If not feel free to cut me a check.

we won't pay the invoices, let's not kid ourselves.

The question isn't will we, it is, should we? I'd say emphatically and obviously, no.

there can be an aggregate wealth transfer

Why are you talking about wealth as a static object? Wealth is far better when created rather than transferred. Remember we are talking over time scales of generations. The idea that there will be "climate refugees" because of global warming is absurd. When I move from one area to another because of a better career, schools, health, benefits, family ect that doesn't make me a "refugee" anymore than when I was homeless walking from one area to another made me a homeless "refugee." In your words "let's not kid ourselves."

Wealth is such a generic word that you can always use it to describe the mitigation of a problem

Unless otherwise stated assume it is being used as defined by a dictionary or the vernacular of its context. That being said I'd invite you to expand on what you mean when you say, "I don't believe in it." regarding wealth.

If the wealthy are the most capable of not foisting, but they are, then you know there's an imbalance in the entire setup.

Again, what makes you think that "balance" is the point of the system or would even be desirable in a system? Wouldn't balance be an expectation that the poor pay us back for our contributions to them? Do you think that is desirable too? Should wealthier countries be responsible for irresponsible poorer countries?

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Few questions. They're big and unreasonable, but they're so big they keep me from engaging in the details.

If replacement of infrastructure and resettling of people is easy and cheap such that we can hope to out-grow climate change, then how come we are not successfully outgrowing the present by an order of magnitude? This is doubly problematic if you're making the claim we can use existing technology.

What self organizing or emergent process is causing many world leaders (and media, etc) to all act in a coordinated manner in this mass deception? This is bigger than the US.

Well at least we've got questions so I guess I'll count that as progress.

Nobody said any of this was "easy" nor did I say the replacement of infrastructure was cheap. I said fuel sources are cheap. Particularly energy-dense fuel sources. The progression to higher levels of energy-dense resources in the form of nuclear power is but one way in which CO2 emissions could be drastically reduced. China which is the largest producer of CO2 emissions overall is targeting an additional 150 nuclear reactors to come online by 2035. This is a direct result of their air quality being affected by coal which produces over 70 times the CO2 per kWh of electricity. The shorter we can make the transition between coal which is by far the largest electricity on earth today into nuclear power we could see those orders of magnitude gains and again this is only a single example but is far, far from the only one that should be pursued. It isn't easy and it certainly isn't cheap but it could be a lot easier and a whole lot cheaper.

As for your last question they aren't, as China shows in the example I gave above there are nations pursuing high energy-dense resources and implementing them as a solution for the environmental problems they face. France is another example that is now over 45% nuclear. Germany and the US could have done this as well rather than pursuing the boondoggle of renewable energy which sits at 16% and 19% despite trillions of dollars being poured into them and fossil fuels remaining over 60% in both those countries. So no there is no conspiracy there are divergent agendas of special interests in each case that profit from the status quo. This is all out in the open and can be looked up using google. There is no mass deception only mass ignorance.

 

[Senethro]

Well at least we've got questions so I guess I'll count that as progress.

Nobody said any of this was "easy" nor did I say the replacement of infrastructure was cheap. I said fuel sources are cheap. Particularly energy-dense fuel sources. The progression to higher levels of energy-dense resources in the form of nuclear power is but one way in which CO2 emissions could be drastically reduced. China which is the largest producer of CO2 emissions overall is targeting an additional 150 nuclear reactors to come online by 2035. This is a direct result of their air quality being affected by coal which produces over 70 times the CO2 per kWh of electricity. The shorter we can make the transition between coal which is by far the largest electricity on earth today into nuclear power we could see those orders of magnitude gains and again this is only a single example but is far, far from the only one that should be pursued. It isn't easy and it certainly isn't cheap but it could be a lot easier and a whole lot cheaper.

As for your last question they aren't, as China shows in the example I gave above there are nations pursuing high energy-dense resources and implementing them as a solution for the environmental problems they face. France is another example that is now over 45% nuclear. Germany and the US could have done this as well rather than pursuing the boondoggle of renewable energy which sits at 16% and 19% despite trillions of dollars being poured into them and fossil fuels remaining over 60% in both those countries. So no there is no conspiracy there are divergent agendas of special interests in each case that profit from the status quo. This is all out in the open and can be looked up using google. There is no mass deception only mass ignorance.

No. If you're correct then the politicians in my nation and many others are lying. Most of the scientific community is lying. If burning fossil fuels below the threshold of harmful air quality is no problem, then many nations are engaging in mass self harm.

You can't explain a thing by saying there is nothing to explain, when it is a very big and obvious thing. The books you've been mentioning are all about explaining how the climate crisis is actually nothing to worry about. If there was nothing to explain away, the books would not exist. Even if they are wrong and the climate crisis is a ghost of the mind, where did it come from?

Did they not actually address what social force or agenda was causing it, even as a reasonable mistake?

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that we should break it down to a single scalable example. In 1992, the globe collectively agreed that continued carbon dioxide emissions would eventually cause Tuvalu to lose shoreline and shrink.

With regards to my relationship with them, by what right did I idle my car to warm it up in the winter?

It is the impoverished in unmodernized countries hence the need to modernize them and create wealth.

I don't mind this as a catch-all statement, but it needs to be broken down. Firstly, *we* need them to modernize faster than we did, because we consumed the carbon buffer such that they may not. But 2ndly, they need to modernize *more quickly* because destructive change was foisted on them. So, I can buy the idea that investment is a solution, but we also need to realize that some of the investment has to come from places other than the bottom.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

No. If you're correct then the politicians in my nation and many others are lying. Most of the scientific community is lying. If burning fossil fuels below the threshold of harmful air quality is no problem, then many nations are engaging in mass self harm.

You can't explain a thing by saying there is nothing to explain, when it is a very big and obvious thing. The books you've been mentioning are all about explaining how the climate crisis is actually nothing to worry about. If there was nothing to explain away, the books would not exist. Even if they are wrong and the climate crisis is a ghost of the mind, where did it come from?

Did they not actually address what social force or agenda was causing it, even as a reasonable mistake?

Why do you claim they are lying and about what? I gave you a direct example of China taking steps to improve air quality by switching from coal to Nuclear. As I've said elsewhere many developing nations are buying up cheap oil and coal as their production exceeds use in modernized nations. The good of these products in the short term is deemed to outweigh the harms in the long term. That doesn't mean that poor air quality isn't recognized as a long-term problem by those countries but rather that they prioritize their development over the harmful effects. Economists like to say there are no solutions only trade-offs.

Nowhere in the quote you provided did I say, "There is nothing to explain" rather I gave you multiple explanations. The books I've mentioned are by environmentalists who express concern about the problems being discussed and disagree over the solutions available. So no none of them state the problems are nothing to worry about in fact they explicitly state the exact opposite but both authors of them agree there is misinformation about the severity of the problem and provide a range of evidence including scientific and factual arguments to support their views. Again, I'm really not sure what you are on about with "nothing to explain." Those aren't my words. Perhaps you could try to rephrase what you are attempting to argue to clarify your position on this point. Because it seems like what you are trying to argue is that because they have disagreements on some extremist views within climate change circles that the extremist views must be correct or the authors couldn't oppose them. I'm sure that isn't what you are trying to say but that sure is what it looks as if you've argued.

Depends on the issue and which author. Michael Shellenberger directs most of his arguments against groups like Climate Genocide or the Sierra Club when discussing misinformation being provided to the public.

 

[Senethro]

Why do you claim they are lying and about what? I gave you a direct example of China taking steps to improve air quality by switching from coal to Nuclear. As I've said elsewhere many developing nations are buying up cheap oil and coal as their production exceeds use in modernized nations. The good of these products in the short term is deemed to outweigh the harms in the long term. That doesn't mean that poor air quality isn't recognized as a long-term problem by those countries but rather that they prioritize their development over the harmful effects. Economists like to say there are no solutions only trade-offs.

Nowhere in the quote you provided did I say, "There is nothing to explain" rather I gave you multiple explanations. The books I've mentioned are by environmentalists who express concern about the problems being discussed and disagree over the solutions available. So no none of them state the problems are nothing to worry about in fact they explicitly state the exact opposite but both authors of them agree there is misinformation about the severity of the problem and provide a range of evidence including scientific and factual arguments to support their views. Again, I'm really not sure what you are on about with "nothing to explain." Those aren't my words. Perhaps you could try to rephrase what you are attempting to argue to clarify your position on this point. Because it seems like what you are trying to argue is that because they have disagreements on some extremist views within climate change circles that the extremist views must be correct or the authors couldn't oppose them. I'm sure that isn't what you are trying to say but that sure is what it looks as if you've argued.

Depends on the issue and which author. Michael Shellenberger directs most of his arguments against groups like Climate Genocide or the Sierra Club when discussing misinformation being provided to the public.

As for global warming even if the worst projections possible are off by a factor of about 400% with temperatures over the next 100 years increasing world temperatures by about 16 degrees and water levels by 20 feet it would have exactly zero significance of an effect on human survivability and expansion. People would merely move to colder climates, and higher elevations, run their air conditioners more, produce more electricity, and go on with life with little-to-no care. Fortunately, it looks very much as if the climate is not changing at nearly the rate of previous predictions which have been wrong over and over and over again to the point that most people who believe in the accuracy of climate predictions should be viewed for the skepticism attributable to soothsayers, religious zealots, and end of the world street bums. If you think the world is going to end because of climate change you are about as informed as the local religious congregation claiming it will end with the return of Jesus next week or space aliens tomorrow. Read the IPCC's pop a Xanax stop getting your info from media sites trying to sell clicks. Just kick back and chill out. You'll be fine.

Hmmmmm. Something odd here. Is this a bit?

Edit: Let me be more clear here. The two quotes don't quite read like the same guy, so now I'm a little cautious and wondering who I'm dealing with - the first guy or the second. One particular ambiguity is the apparent dismissal of the scientific consensus in one, and the claim that "Actually, they agree with me!" in the other. A clarification of the line dividing where the sensible, good climate scientists and their foolish extremist colleagues stand might be useful.

You're relying hugely on people not questioning your unspoken assumptions, and hoping either not to be called upon them, or expecting to be able to say that you are not making any specific claim about that subject. Take the first line of the top quote - If the scientific consensus is that water is wet, and you make statements that are dependent upon water being dry, and when this is highlighted you point out that strictly, you never said anything about the wetness of water. This may be true, but it doesn't make you right, and the question remains unanswered.

Theres a whole lot of this in your posts. Just big, huge issues being glossed over. That continued growth will be easy, widely distributed even when it is not currently occurring even without a climate crisis. And noone is acting like what you're saying is true, even though it would be very convenient if it were. Your responses? Glib dismissals along the lines of "educate yourself".

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Hmmmmm. Something odd here. Is this a bit?

Edit: Let me be more clear here. The two quotes don't quite read like the same guy, so now I'm a little cautious and wondering who I'm dealing with - the first guy or the second. One particular ambiguity is the apparent dismissal of the scientific consensus in one, and the claim that "Actually, they agree with me!" in the other. A clarification of the line dividing where the sensible, good climate scientists and their foolish extremist colleagues stand might be useful.

You're relying hugely on people not questioning your unspoken assumptions, and hoping either not to be called upon them, or expecting to be able to say that you are not making any specific claim about that subject. Take the first line of the top quote - If the scientific consensus is that water is wet, and you make statements that are dependent upon water being dry, and when this is highlighted you point out that strictly, you never said anything about the wetness of water. This may be true, but it doesn't make you right, and the question remains unanswered.

Theres a whole lot of this in your posts. Just big, huge issues being glossed over. That continued growth will be easy, widely distributed even when it is not currently occurring even without a climate crisis. And noone is acting like what you're saying is true, even though it would be very convenient if it were. Your responses? Glib dismissals along the lines of "educate yourself".

Is it a bit? Nope, not a bit. See how I answered the only question you actually asked there?

I'm not following where you are getting lost here. Both quotes are objecting to misinformation and climate alarmism. I'm really not sure where you are seeing the false statements that the scientific consensus opposes. In my previous statement, I've said even if the predictions are far direr than the IPCC report that isn't really an insurmountable problem. That is the scientific consensus. I see nothing to be taken seriously saying the world will end in the near future because of climate change. What I do see is "here are the predictions for CO2 emissions and the consequences of those emissions." So to clarify I'm making a point in one statement about the extremes and in the other I'm presenting the realities vs the extremes. That's entirely consistent throughout both statements.

I'm more than happy to have unstated assumption questioned but thus far when you in particular have attempted to do that you've misquoted or failed to address what I've actually said this case being yet another prime example. I invite you to ask questions but be specific, use my actual words, and seek clarification if something seems confusing. I'm certainly open to mistakes being pointed out to me but if you come at me half-cocked you are going to get shot down.

Illustrating this, I never said growth would be easy, I have no idea what "widely distributed" means as again I didn't say that perhaps you are talking about my points on wealth creation but why do you continue to insist on making up arguments and words and presenting them as mine when they are in fact your own creation I've no idea. You are coming to me telling me what books say that you clearly haven't read so yes excuse my glib responses when I've already given you multiple sources for what I'm telling you that you refuse to read or explore.

You seem to want to engage and I'm doing my best to humor you but you aren't making it easy to have a civil dialogue. I'd encourage you to boil it down to the simplest objection you can make. Quote, exactly word for word what I said that upset you or that you object to, and lay out your case for why you think it is wrong. Even if you can't articulate the reason just looking at something to say, this bothers me and I don't know why is a starting place for inquiry and discussion.

 

[Senethro]

Keeping it short: Why has SHellenberg and others of his ilk failed to be more convincing?

Not a question: Shellenberg and co don't need to be shown to be wrong, if they themselves fail to be insufficiently right.

Where does the line for climate alarmist drawn? Sometimes you act like alarmists are very common, but more recently you've been implying that they're a minority outside the consensus.

Not a question: I note also that your tone varies. There is a significant gap between "not insurmountable" and the kind of language used in that quote I brought in from the other thread. Maybe your intent was just to be provocative.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Keeping it short: Why has SHellenberg and others of his ilk failed to be more convincing?

Not a question: Shellenberg and co don't need to be shown to be wrong, if they themselves fail to be insufficiently right.

Where does the line for climate alarmist drawn? Sometimes you act like alarmists are very common, but more recently you've been implying that they're a minority outside the consensus.

Not a question: I note also that your tone varies. There is a significant gap between "not insurmountable" and the kind of language used in that quote I brought in from the other thread. Maybe your intent was just to be provocative.

I lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth has half a chance to get its pants on in the morning. Sensationalism sells in the media. An activist group pulling a publicity stunt makes headlines. A scientist weighing in on the facts may get a correction but it doesn't get clicks. As for the failure to change policy, laws, and regulations see my previous posts on vested interests in the status quo.

A doctor can tell you to exercise and be 100% correct. The inability to get you in the gym doesn't make him wrong.

I'd say the line should be claims that diverge from the truth.

My tone probably varies a lot depending on what I'm responding to, especially in text. Expressing thought is to dare to be provocative to those who disagree. You certainly haven't shied away from being provocative yourself and all the more power to you so long as you are sincere.

 

[Samson]

The idea that there will be "climate refugees" because of global warming is absurd.

From the World Economic Forum, the economic right wing of the right wing:

In April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released data showing that the number of people displaced by climate change-related disasters since 2010 has risen to 21.5 million, pointing out that “in addition to sudden disasters, climate change is a complex cause of food and water shortages, as well as difficulties in accessing natural resources.”​

​

Sea-level rise is another threat. Over the past 30 years, the number of people living in coastal areas at high risk of rising sea levels has increased from 160 million to 260 million, 90% of whom are from poor developing countries and small island states. For example, in Bangladesh it is predicted that 17% of the country will be submerged by the rise in sea level by 2050, and 20 million people living there will lose their homes.​

​

The Ecosystem Threat Register (ETR) released in September 2018 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), an Australian international think tank, points out that at least 1.2 billion people could be displaced by these threats by 2050. In this context, the international response to the problem has gradually begun to progress.​

 

[Angst]

I lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth has half a chance to get its pants on in the morning. Sensationalism sells in the media. An activist group pulling a publicity stunt makes headlines. A scientist weighing in on the facts may get a correction but it doesn't get clicks. As for the failure to change policy, laws, and regulations see my previous posts on vested interests in the status quo.

A doctor can tell you to exercise and be 100% correct. The inability to get you in the gym doesn't make him wrong.

I'd say the line should be claims that diverge from the truth.

My tone probably varies a lot depending on what I'm responding to, especially in text. Expressing thought is to dare to be provocative to those who disagree. You certainly haven't shied away from being provocative yourself and all the more power to you so long as you are sincere.

i mean the problem is just that you're wrong. you're massively misrepresenting the scientific consensus. they're generally extremely worried and frustrated, especially since the tech is already available

like when the practicality of moving coastal settlements is countered by something as damnable as an hbomberguy meme, you're not really dealing with the world as is. yea yea sensationalism clicks whatever. i'd like to know what you'd do if your house vaporized without a new one being ready, that you yourself have to buy on top of that

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

From the World Economic Forum, the economic right wing of the right wing:

In April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released data showing that the number of people displaced by climate change-related disasters since 2010 has risen to 21.5 million, pointing out that “in addition to sudden disasters, climate change is a complex cause of food and water shortages, as well as difficulties in accessing natural resources.”​

​

Sea-level rise is another threat. Over the past 30 years, the number of people living in coastal areas at high risk of rising sea levels has increased from 160 million to 260 million, 90% of whom are from poor developing countries and small island states. For example, in Bangladesh it is predicted that 17% of the country will be submerged by the rise in sea level by 2050, and 20 million people living there will lose their homes.​

​

The Ecosystem Threat Register (ETR) released in September 2018 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), an Australian international think tank, points out that at least 1.2 billion people could be displaced by these threats by 2050. In this context, the international response to the problem has gradually begun to progress.​

World Population in 2008 was 6.81 billion and in 2021 was 7.91 billion showing a 16% increase during that time.

Population

An interactive visualization from Our World in Data.

ourworldindata.org

If we extrapolate the data provided by iDMC we find a rather puzzling trend if we take your assertion as true despite this increase of 16% in the world population over that time the number of refugees continues to decrease from 27.69 to 21.21 or over 23%
.
Shellenberger and Bjorn both agree on the explanations for this which is logically consistent with their arguments and position on these disasters but how do you explain it under your assertion?

This problem becomes even more magnified when looking at population areas in modernized vs unmodernized areas such as the US golf coast vs the coast of Bangladesh

While we might stop there if you broaden the timeframe and correct for the population the trend magnifies rather than decreases.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

the World Economic Forum, the economic right wing of the right wing:

In what world is this assertion based?