A Balanced View of Climate Change

[Orangecat]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.

Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'

Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

Your logical pragmatism won't fly with the dingbat religious climate zealots (Baboon Assfuk) on the left.
I commend you for your effort, though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe part of the problem is that the seriousness or urgency for climate change has yet to be proven. Most people today do not see the problem as dire as many on the Left portray it to be, hence not much interest in adapting to or preventing possible future catastrophes, should they arise.

Yes. EMH blasted me and calls me an unscientific idiot and fraud because I'm willing to have an open mind on the topic. I don't KNOW whether human activity has affected the climate and neither does he. It took roughly 800,000 years for the first homo sapiens to sufficiently procreate to populate the Earth with 1 billion people as of 1800. And it has taken only 220 years or so for that 1 billion to expand to more than 8 billion people. An open mind should at least consider how much affect that kind of increase will have on the planet.

But I do suspect the author of the linked OP piece is absolutely correct that the 'Armageddon' predictions for AGW far exceed the realities. Even if the planet did warm by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century--and that is a big IF--it hardly warrants the draconian efforts to stop that. Based on experience so far, it is highly unlikely they'll have much if any affect on that anyway.

So my argument is and has been for quite some time now:

--Keep researching and studying our planet, its environment and all the other factors important to the flora and fauna that live on it but use real science and not politically motivated propaganda to assess that. That requires allowing ALL opinion and research to be included in the national conversation.

--Keep an eye on the Earth's resources with honest assessment of their availability and quantity so that the private sector can develop new and better ways to run the world.

--Instead of wasting trillions of dollars on so called 'green energy' that so far seems to have no affect whatsoever on climate change and unnecessary and expensive mandates, rules, regs, put government efforts into developing productive ways for humankind to adapt to an inevitably changing climate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your logical pragmatism won't fly with the dingbat religious climate zealots (Baboon Assfuk) on the left.
I commend you for your effort, though.

All honorable people can do is put the available facts, logic, reason out there and hope it will be seen by those who still have capacity for using logic, reason, critical thinking, intellectual honesty. Alas I agree with you that some are so brain washed they attack anything or anybody who proposes an idea or concept they have been programmed to reject.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

It's completely intellectually dishonest to state support for scientific understanding the mechanics and health of the biosphere yet then condition the acceptance of that understanding upon displeasure with economic outcomes. There's no actual concern for the biosphere. There's no 'balance'. There's only the pursuit of infinite growth while rejecting any costs or concepts that our systems have limits.

 

[abu afak]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread...
So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.
...
Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

"By Bjorn Lomborg"

Wiki​

""Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE at the Aarhus University in 1991, and a PhD degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE at the University of Copenhagen."""​

""In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions on environmental issues are Wrong. ​

The book received Negative reviews among the scientific community, including from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature and Scientific American, with many scientists criticising its assertions as Poorly supported, selectively using data and Misrepresenting sources..>"​

​

""Formal accusations of Scientific Dishonesty""​

[.....]​

​

""Personal life​

Lomborg is Gay and a Vegetarian.[68] As a public figure he has been a participant in information campaigns in Denmark about homosexuality,"...."​

....
`

 

[Foxfyre]

"
By Bjorn Lomborg"

Wiki​

""Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in POLITICA SCIENCE at the Aarhus University in 1991, and a PhD degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE at the University of Copenhagen."""​

​

""In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions on environmental issues are Wrong. The book received Negative reviews among the scientific community, including from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature and Scientific American, with many scientists criticising its assertions as Poorly supported, selectively using data and Misrepresenting sources..>"​

​

​

""Formal accusations of scientific dishonesty""​

​

​

​

""Personal life​

Lomborg is Gay and a Vegetarian.[68] As a public figure he has been a participant in information campaigns in Denmark about homosexuality,"...."​

`

`

So? Do you have a problem with gay people and/or vegetarians?

He presented a very well written and carefully thought out and reasonable argument. You are welcome to provide a rationale for how he was wrong with any of it. He even conceded that the pro-AGW scientists may be right. His argument was how the situation should be considered and addressed and not whether AGW is or isn't a fact.

P.S. Those promoting AGW as an existential threat to humankind will ALWAYS pooh pooh the skeptic or contrary opinion without ever giving the specific reason the person is wrong. Why? Because they are mostly self-serving politicians and promoters instead of focusing on the science. And the brainwashed and programmed incapable of critical thinking and independent fault will parrot the propaganda instead of actually analyzing what the argument is. And that is sad.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No need to. I understand what drives the planet's climate. Pro tip: It's the ocean.

Good for you!

Personally, I will defer to the scientists who discovered and taught you the limited knowledge you have on this topic. Like a normal adult.

 

[ding]

Good for you!

Personally, I will defer to the scientists who discovered and taught you the limited knowledge you have on this topic. Like a normal adult.

Like a cuck?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What percentage of heat is stored in the atmosphere relative to the ocean?

Or do you think that's a question only climate scientists should ponder?

You always confuse yourself.

I'm not your assistant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Like a kuck?

Like a normal adult. Join us. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[ding]

You always confuse yourself.

I'm not your assistant.

I already know the answer. I'm no cuck.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All honorable people can do is put the available facts, logic, reason out there and hope it will be seen by those who still have capacity for using logic, reason, critical thinking, intellectual honesty.

Then you would immediately agree that humans have caused the rapid climate change.

But you arent doing any of the above, in your post. You think characterizing ideas is a substitute for evidence and argument. It isn't.

 

[ding]

Like a normal adult. Join us. You're embarrassing yourself.

I know science. You don't. Not sure what I should be embarrassed about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already know the answer. I'm no cuck.

Good for you.

When will your research be published?



Or do you just sit there like a lump and let others do all the work and have all the fun?
(As a cuckold does)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know science.

Wow!

I love lamp.

 

[ding]

Good for you.

When will your research be published?



Or do you just sit there like a lump and let others do all the work and have all the fun?
(As a cuckold does)

Just as soon as the AMOC collapses.

 

[ding]

Wow!

I love lamp.

Says the guy who can't discuss any of this.

 

[ding]

Then you would immediately agree that humans have caused the rapid climate change.

But you arent doing any of the above, in your post. You think characterizing ideas is a substitute for evidence and argument. It isn't.

The evidence shows that the planet is on an interglacial period still warming up to its pre-glacial temperature before it plunges into another glacial period like it has been doing for the past 3 million years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Says the guy who can't discuss any of this.

I can discuss the conclusions of scientists.

I am not interested in the internet braying of uneducated slobs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence shows that the planet is on an interglacial period still warming up to its pre-glacial temperature before it plunges into another glacial period.

Great! Then publish your research. You're gonna be famous!