04 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76I say we should embrace global warming and CO2.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen
Although this fellow is obviously a climate change alarmist, which I'm not quite sure I buy to the full extent, he essentially is saying the same thing I've been preaching:
All this picking and prodding about quotas and carbon credits and allowance of per capita emiss ...[text shortened]... iticians get some nice photo-ops though. Maybe they'll even win a group Nobel Peace Prize.
Hey... it's not like the human race is reknown for really caring or changing things...
Bring it on! I'm buying new Sun glasses this afternoon.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by PalynkaPerhaps it's a false dichotomy. But, I think something DrKF said before is key:
Yes, obviously. False dichotomy.
If the problems are not as grave as the most alarming projections, we have more time and, ahem, energy to devote to arguing about strictly political matters. Although, of course, in that case the impetus to action will decrease...
IPCC scientists and politicians who support their theories feel they can't go to the World and say "Well, MMGW is a problem, but not an immediate emergency. We should do something about it now before it gets out of hand, though. So, let's use cap and trade and similar "light" measures to deal with the problem."
They can't do that because they know that most countries will balk at sacrificing economic growth in the interest of solving a non-urgent problem.
So, instead, they say*:
"EMERGENCY!! ALL THE WORLD'S COASTAL CITIES WILL BE SUBMERGED SOON! FOOD PRODUCTION WILL BE SLASHED! HEATWAVES AND STORMS WILL DESTROY OUR CIVILIZATION!! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE! EARTH IS GOING TO BE LIKE VENUS SOON UNLESS WE STOP EMITTING CO2!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING, HENNY PENNY; THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!"
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Al-Gore-fuels-climate-change-skeptics-with-cover-of-new-book
(* -Okay; they don't really "say" this. I'm taking a little poetic license)
But then, when it comes to solving the problem, they say:
"Well, we should concentrate on rich countries reducing emissions slowly and slightly while paying off poorer countries to not grow their emissions too much. Though, for the time being, we should let the poorer countries increase their emissions unchecked because, hey, it would be unfair to ask them to stop increasing emissions when their per capita emissions are still low."
The problem is that the two are inconsistent. Either admit that you don't think MMGW is really an immediate emergency or start suggesting solutions that will actually do something in the event MMGW is an immediate emergency.
04 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I still think it's consistent, although I admit it superficially sounds like it isn't.
Perhaps it's a false dichotomy. But, I think something DrKF said before is key:
[b]If the problems are not as grave as the most alarming projections, we have more time and, ahem, energy to devote to arguing about strictly political matters. Although, of course, in that case the impetus to action will decrease...
IPCC scientists and politicians who sup s that will actually do something in the event MMGW is an immediate emergency.[/b]
The thing is that this is a typical negotiation. And, as I'm sure you know, in a negotiation you don't aim your opening bid to the terms that you're aiming to settle on, you just aim farther and then try to get the other party to settle where you were really aiming for.
Worst case scenario (this was my point to DrKF), you can see how things develop from here and call an emergency meeting if the pessimistic scenarios are looking more and more probable. It's much easier to say, look guys, things are developing for the worse and we should UPDATE our goals than it is to renegotiate everything from scratch. Moreover, there would be a solid basis to say "this is insufficient".
I'm a firm believer than MMGW is a problem, but how urgent it is and how much needs to be done is still very unclear (I think we can agree on that last part). So we settle for something now that gives us some time, a real rate of reductions worldwide to serve as basis for future studies and a platform of agreement on which to start the next round of negotiations if needed. This sounds quite ok to me.
04 Dec 09
2 edits
Let's imagine a scale from one to ten, representing legitimate concern about MMGW.*
Let position 1 on the scale represent something like 'we've seen a real problem, but it's on the horizon and we have plenty of time to deal with it' and let position 10 on the scale represent something like 'it's so close to the brink (of irreversible environmental catastrophe) that if we do not act in a truly radical manner right now mankind is doomed'.
The point being made is that, the closer one gets to position 10 on the scale, the more politicking is a (truly dangerous) waste of time. The most alarming projections - and a great deal of the rhetoric around MMGW policy - put us close to position ten on the scale; if those most alarming projections are true, the current Dutch auction in emissions is not only futile, but ultimately more dangerous than we can conceive. Put another way, if the problem is level 10 global and truly dire, the 'natural order' of international relations is dooming the human race!
There are plenty of scientists and advocacy groups that rate the scale of the problem close to ten, and many of them are (with consistency, at least) pre-judging Copenhagen as futile gesture politics and hubristic national self-interest, and it is to that viewpoint that sh76 and I address ourselves (if I get you right - feel free to correct me).
The lower down the scale one goes - the less pressing the problem, in effect - the more politicking is acceptable and the more we can call the dichotomy false. But there is surely a point on the scale when the dichotomy is not false, and much of the MMGW rhetoric often seems to place us in that position.
Watermelon politics (green on the outside, red on the inside) and Realpolitik are all well and good, but neither has a place near position ten on the scale.
*For our purposes here, we assume MMGW is real, of course.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by DrKF"*For our purposes here, we assume MMGW is real, of course."
Let's imagine a scale from one to ten, representing legitimate concern about MMGW.*
Let position 1 on the scale represent something like 'we've seen a real problem, but it's on the horizon and we have plenty of time to deal with it' and let position 10 on the scale represent something like 'it's so close to the brink (of irreversible environmental catastrop ...[text shortened]... en on the scale.
*For our purposes here, we assume MMGW is real, of course.
why are we to assume it is real? as I have been saying for months on this site it is a junk science. There is no MMGW.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI put it in specifically to stop people hijacking a perfectly reasonable discussion based on a premise that makes the discussion possible.
"*For our purposes here, we assume MMGW is real, of course."
why are we to assume it is real? as I have been saying for months on this site it is a junk science. There is no MMGW.
Can't you go back to touching yourself thinking of Glenn Beck leading a People's Revolution or trying to outwit FMF?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by DrKFThat is such a fitting avatar you have there. Be careful bugs get squashed! 🙂
I put it in specifically to stop people hijacking a perfectly reasonable discussion based on a premise that makes the discussion possible.
Can't you go back to touching yourself thinking of Glenn Beck leading a People's Revolution or trying to outwit FMF?
I am sorry if i appear to be hi-jacking this public thread,not my attention. All though my right to comment all I want. But I wont. Please continue to pontificate on your make believe scenarios and i will quietly follow along from the side lines.
As you were...
05 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzA0MWFkNWMyZTA5YmU3ZTVlOGNhNmJkYjZiNWViZmU=
Perhaps it's a false dichotomy. But, I think something DrKF said before is key:
[b]If the problems are not as grave as the most alarming projections, we have more time and, ahem, energy to devote to arguing about strictly political matters. Although, of course, in that case the impetus to action will decrease...
IPCC scientists and politicians who sup ...[text shortened]... s that will actually do something in the event MMGW is an immediate emergency.[/b]
...
Charlie Martin over at PJM highlights a perfect illustration of this tendency. Apparently the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, recently blew a gasket over a study that was equivocal on whether or not the Himalayan glaciers were melting due to global warming. Pachauri said: Of course they're melting! In fact, the 2007 IPCC report asserted that they are melting faster there than any place else. They'll all be gone — gone I tell you! — by 2035 if not sooner. The panel reported that: "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
Now, anyone who has seen a glacier up close who is not drunk on Kool Aid would have looked at a prediction that all of the roughly 10,000 Himalayan glaciers would be gone in less than 25 years with skepticism (particularly when many of them are, in fact, growing). It turns out that the 2035 prediction was a typo. The original paper on which the prediction was based had said the glaciers could be gone by 2350, but the IPCC guys read it as 2035 and Pachauri not only believed it, but when confronted with scientific evidence that even the 350 year prediction might be overblown, angrily defended the 25-year prediction as authoritative.