3-1= no chance
Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change
-
It isn’t a leftist conspiracy. It is just seen as one because mitigation calls for a lot of things that the left is in favor of like more environmental regulation.
I certainly support any sort of mitigation strategy. I just don’t think the carbon tax is going to be sufficient since we are seriously behind schedule on avoiding really bad impacts. If that’s what we can get, that’s what we can get but really the entire planet has to get together on some sort of sustainability/planning ahead program.
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth and we’re running out of room and running out of things to extract. We need some thinking unlike what got us into this mess and while a carbon tax would be a start it doesn’t address even longer term problems other than the climate that climate science should be bringing into focus.
-
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth and we’re running out of room and running out of things to extract.
I will have to disagree. I think this is the root where out opinions diverge: We are not running out of room and we’re not running out of things to extract. Hubbard’s peak was supposed to happen 13 years ago and the peak-oil crowd has insisted every year since that “this is the one!” It’s simply not going to happen. Why? 1 word: growth. Technological growth to be precise. What is the primary driver of technological growth? 1 word: capitalism. You know how far a gallon of gas took you in the 70’s? Not very far. Now you can get 63mpg in the city! What got us there? High oil prices drives demand for more fuel efficient cars, markets respond and capitalists invest in more fuel efficient technology. This is the one areas where Garg is right. Technology is the main driver behind us reducing out impact on the environment. Think about LED lighting, solar power, lithium batteries etc. etc. All of these things have helped to reduce the magnitude of our environmental footprint. And if we had a properly functioning free market (ie: one where the cost of GHG emissions is internalised into the cost of production, by say: a carbon tax) we would get there all the faster.
No leftist conspiracy, no reshaping society as we know it.
-
Technological growth to be precise. What is the primary driver of technological growth? 1 word: capitalism.
I would say its actually the desire to kill others. War/the need to kill other human beings is the driver for technology…money/greed just has shotgun…
-
A agree with Canuck on this one. I was about to quote you frimmel but was beat to it!
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth
I would posit that the free market is built/based on the most efficient utilization of ‘capital’. Growth can be a metric for this and since it’s not a zero-sum game the ‘system’ will also grow. But growth for growth sake is not on the ‘agenda’ for the free market.
Some rules are good. You can’t increase your factories capital utilization metric by dumping poison down the sewers. Anything you do can cause damage so it’s fair to pay for ‘acceptable’ damage in some way. The European fuel tax and to a lessor extent the delta in fuel taxes between Canada and the US benefits Canada more than the US. The Canadian auto fleet gets better fuel economy on average than the US fleet, albeit for a variety of reasons including old cars in Canada rust out and must be replaced.
There may be hope for humanity after all……
US climate-change skeptics LOSING SUPPORT
-
A couple observations, and then I will promise to myself that I’ll avoid this silly thread.
1. Time scale. Some people have no ability to appreciate it.
2. Pragmatism. If things are changing at a rapid rate… if that change causes undesirable economic, agricultural, and human consequences (we’ll ignore the childish nihilists and eugenicists for a moment)… if you have only one lever to push back against the change… then that is what you do.
3. Common sense. The pee in the pool analogy is apt. With how much of our own filth are we willing to live? Pollution okay with you? So, how much? Is there any point at which you might find it unbearable? If not, then you might be a millenarian and the rest of us should not take you seriously.
-
The thing with free markets is they are built on a mantra of growth and we’re running out of room and running out of things to extract.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRGsN2piqJg
Skip to time 1:26 to hear Frimm’s point better articulated.
-
I usually prefer my political points without dubstep, but thanks none the less.
The thermodynamics argument is silly. By that logic everything is unsustainable. The sun is unsustainable, the moon’s orbit is unsustainable, the universe is unsustainable. These are facts according to the laws of thermodynamics but who gives a shit about 200 billion years from now? Yes, on an infinite time-series a growth economy will break down. But so will everything else!
That just flows from the fact that (Growth Economy) is a subset of (Everything in Existence) the latter of which is subject to the laws of thermodynamics and, therefore, so is the former.
Redking just said it best:
@Redking:1. Time scale. Some people have no ability to appreciate it.
-
Growth economies work - so long as large swath’s of the population die here and there…
Not agreeing - just saying… :P
-
Red-King your comment about FILTH is a great one.
I agree, how much pollution am I willing to live with is a great question to ask!
Of course, what if my neighbours are dirty, and tell me to F-OFF when I attempt to talk to them about it, and thier stink gets so bad I can barely live…?. does that give me the right to end their lives? Probabaly not?
Unless of course, the pollution is so bad, that my life is at risk? Then it’s self defense - or isn’t it?
Global-enviromental-wars are coming soon…
Also, I fail to see how us playing a social game over pieces of colored paper we’re told are worth something even when they’re not are somehow suppose to fix the climate more to our liking?
Why don’t we play football instead. Football has as much to do with Climate Change as Taxation and monetary reshuffling does.
-
Also, I fail to see how us playing a social game over pieces of colored paper we’re told are worth something even when they’re not are somehow suppose to fix the climate more to our liking?
Why don’t we play football instead. Football has as much to do with Climate Change as Taxation and monetary reshuffling does.
Really? You fail to see how taxation of a certain behavour might influence how often they are willing to do said behaviour?
I think I’m about done with this thread.
-
I usually prefer my political points without dubstep, but thanks none the less.
I wasn’t referencing the whole song, I was just throwing it out there as nicer to listen to than reading Frimm’s comment.
I love the album, not saying I endorse the message… or intended it to be applied here for that matter.
So no, by your own admission the thermodynamics and increasing entropy argument is not silly. So why call it that? Perhaps it is too large a scale to apply to our discussion, but in and of itself it is true.
-
Really? You fail to see how taxation of a certain behavour might influence how often they are willing to do said behaviour?
At what point did this thread get hijacked by people who spew these Carbon Tax arguments in a thread about the validity of climate change?
It was halfway enlightening before people started belching their own uninformed opinion without even following the topic…
sigh
-
Yep. Done.
-
The trolls rule the day, pity.
-
The trolls rule the day, pity.
On You Tube no less, Mr. Shirtless fat dude wearing $10 sunglasses writes:
“You may not jeer and clown, but you mispell and misdiagnose like a true pro… I guess spelling and English were not required courses of study in your school.”
misspell not mispell…And don’t tell me where you are from they spell that way.
“Kruggerr… You’re a F** like all canadiens. You actually had bls enough to respond to a random bash on Canada. But it will gain you nothing more than another bash (a little less random) on all canadien d*bags. It’s like a big trailer park”
Too easy…
Yes Trolls rule…on You Tube at least. How sophisticated of you…
-
You know Canuck…
I have to say I find it Ironic that instead of doing your part for the enviroment, and paying oodles of Carbon Tax whilst working for me in British Columbia - that instead you chose to spend your money on giant airplane rides and travelling around the world distributing your wealth to developing countries who have no regards or tax provisions for their enviroment at all!
Even Now you’ve chosen to live in a carbon tax free province.
A province that recieves transfer payments from mine to support your habits and carbon addiction!
It’s EVIDENTLY clear that the carbon tax isn’t the solution for you! :P
-
Hahahaha!
You’ve got me there Garg!
(I guess I’ll come back to the discussion. Now that it might be productive again.)
Midterms tomorrow. I’ll respond in time.
-
I lament the fact Ontario is now a have not province. Ontario also gets about 50% of it’s electricity from nuclear, a co-incidence? Some thinks so……some… que evil laugh #7
So, back to some inconvenient facts…yes, pesky facts. In typical Register fashion they have to throw some humour and ‘digs’ in there. A note to troll boy. No troll boy, I did not spell humour incorrectly…
While sea ice grows, Antarctica sheds land ice
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/24/antarctic_melting_airstrip/
-
I still don’t have time to respond at the moment. But while we’re all posting articles this book review is EXCELLENT. And will give anyone who is interested a better perspective on where I’m coming from.
“–-Wind is NOT the answer, solar is NOT the answer. SHALE GAS may be the answer! Climate change legislation is RIFE with pork, special interests and WASTES of money…”
Enticed my climate-change doubting friends?
please read on…
Suggested Topics
