@Colt45:
This is not a dating website.
Oh Shizzle…
[quietly deletes post about being a Scorpio and liking to take long walks on the beach…]
Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change
-
Check your sea-ice data Garg. Lowest in recorded history by far this last year. (Continuing the trend since record began.) Blew the scary science predictions away.
Also, you still haven’t addressed my suggestion/question. It seem sliek you want to help multiple opinions here:
- You admit that climate change is occurring but state that there is no reasonable way to fix it
then when someone presents a reasonable way to fix it you revert back to:
- Climate change is not occurring.
Please address this for the sake of your scientific discussion.
P.S. The sea-ice data records are quite good. They record is actually maintained by the US department of defence. They needed an accurate record of sea-ice thickness at the north pole so that they could strategically place nuclear submarines as close to Russia as possible while still allowing the subs a thin enough ice pack to surface for oxygen.
So someone that has NO interest in distorting the data has been keeping an eye on this one since the early seventies. (The science doesn’t lie.)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Check it every day if you like. They update it every 24 hours.
Great website Canuck! As a realist though, I am dissappointed that you only cherry pick what you want to see.
Let me quote the first paragraph of news from YOUR source.
The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent is now increasing. While much attention has been paid to the record minimum Arctic ice extent set on September 16, 2012, winter sea ice extent in Antarctica has reached a record high. The Antarctic extent increase is an interesting response to changes in circulation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere.
This really says everything I need to know. Â All the attention of the Frimmels of the world are freaking out about artic record lows, whilst ignoring a clear polar/cold shift to antarctica which is setting recor highs. (It’s this entire continent of mostly ice if you didn’t know).
1. The Science doesn’t lie
2. This is from your totally objective and uber source
3. An entire continent of ice is growing in the southern hemisphere setting record highs AND NO ONE including yourself is talking about it!
Whats the bottom line you ask? Your source kindly points it out.
“While much attention has been paid…”
Instead of looking at the whole picture, as a realist like me, some ice caps growing, some melting, things changing as they have for billions of years, the attention of the world is being force fed cherry picked information.
Why do you have to cherry pick - if the information is simply the truth?
And how does an entire growing continent of ice, fit into your global sea temperatures are astronomically rising models?
-
HOLY SH*T GUYS!
Antarcitca has been growing by 1% on average every year since 1979!
It’s growing at something like 16,000 Square KM’s EVERY YEAR!
We’re all going to die! It’s a NEW Ice age! The science doesn’t lie!
-
Sigh. Pre-emptive strike link again. Argument number 10 and argument 113.
Direct link to number 10: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-basic.htm
-
10 and 113 tend to contradict each other……until you read in detail that is…
-
Nice post Frimm,
Did you read it Garg?
Also, you still haven’t addressed the Carbon tax….
I know you really really want to hold both positions: (Climate change is happening but there’s nothing we can do about it AND Climate change isn’t happening.) But you’re going to have to reconcile with yourself at some point.
So, Carbon tax:
- Clear, market based, adaptation that humans should make to ensure the long-term survivability of the planet for most organisms that we care about, including ourselves.
OR
- Frivolous waste of energy (even if economically efficient) because climate change doesn’t matter and will have less of an effect on the planet than a carbon tax would.
What do you think?
-
So, Carbon tax:
- Frivolous waste of energy (even if economically efficient) because climate change doesn’t matter and will have less of an effect on the planet than a carbon tax would.
Can’t speak for Garg but I go with No. 2. I would not phrase it as you have done, but (2) is much nearer my sentiment than (1). Carbon tax is just a bad idea, unless of course you believe in economic redistribution and/or that we need to take any and all immediate action to thwart our impending doom from a changing climate. If we fundamentally disagree, as I believe we do, then my perspective of (concern over) this tax is threefold: 1) unnecessary and economically harmful, 2) shifts national sovereignty and economic resources to a global pool and 3) would likely be “unfair” or inequitable.
-
Also, you still haven’t addressed the Carbon tax….
I thought I had? But I’ll clarify.
You’re right Canuck, we have a carbon tax in British Columbia. Other than increase the cost of living for folks in British Columbia, what has this actually done for the enviroment?
Jack-all. You and I both know it’s a joke, I just dump that extra 5 cents a litre right into the tank of my SUV anyways, without giving a damn. And the government revenue isn’t even used directly on enviromental programs/enforcement.
And here’s the kicker.
Now I am fortunate enough to have the money to spend on local organic food/produce etc, and I do. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that this extra cost of living on the average to low income family, probably -encourages- them to spend thier money on cheaper foreign/imported products. Even things as stupid as toilet paper, a product that gets shipped around the world just to wipe ass.
The problem here of course then is the -compromise- If you’re going to use carbon tax, and you want it to actually help the enviroment, then max the carbon tax to the point where it is actually so burdening that people like me can’t afford to drive and it actually forces people to change their ways.
Of course, that = the death of the economy.
And it also means the death of overseas trade. An item you personally hold at the pinnacle of your belief system - as the solution to war and the human condition.
Canuck, you cannot deny that the carbon tax as implemented is just an excuse for another tax hidden by the guise of making us feel guilty.
-
As for you Frimmel. :)
Let’s say I have chosen to accept you are 100% right?
This massive social upheaving you are talking about… is the plan to infect huge swaths of the population with a fatal biological agent? Because you seem to support VERY drastic change and feel that it needs to happen immediately -or else-.
-
Overseas trade will decline due to rising energy costs (and increased Chinese wages) even without any special carbon tax.
But I agree with Gargantua’s assessment of the efficacy of carbon taxes. Such taxes would need to be prohibitively high to achieve their goal.
If you want to use the market to change behavior, invest in a superior alternative (for example: high speed rail).
-
solar panels
-
I will say it again man may have a slight impact on the environment but to think that we are in complete command of the environment due to SUV’s and aerosol cans is lunacy. Once again follow the money trail gents. The people that are pushing this stand to gain finacially from this. Al Gore has 10,000 sq ft house and flies on private jets if he cared soo much about the environment don’t you think he would be doing his part to preserve it. I know politics is not supposed to be involved in this discussion but oh well. I get tired of people(politicians) telling me because I drive a Ford explorer and I have my temperature set at 72 somehow I am destroying the planet while they fly on private jets and and have SUV’s bigger than mine.
-
@Vance:
solar panels
?
-
Once again follow the money trail gents.
Certain representatives from both sides of this debate have strong economic interests in public policy. Certain representatives from both sides also live hypocritically.
If someone advocates the right course for the wrong reasons, does that make the course they advocate wrong?
-
If you want to use the market to change behavior, invest in a superior alternative (for example: high speed rail).
Governments all over are doing this; investing in a a “superior” alternative. Unfortunately, such a thing does not yet exist in most circumstances. I would think that the figures on solar, wind, bio-fuel etc… show that they are not (yet perhaps) superior alternatives. I would think that “superior” means more efficient, effective and cost effective. So far this has not proven to be the case, if the massive gov subsidies required to sustain them are any indication. High speed rail may be a fine application in very specific situations, but very rarely in the United States at least. It too must be gov subsidized because the costs are so huge to construct such a system. Plus, it is generally wasteful of taxpayer money because Americans either drive or fly or take a bus… all costs considered, rail is not really superior.
One aspect is similar to the experiment with coins vs. paper money. For years the US government has been trying to get people accustomed to using coins over paper bills. I believe the reasoning is that coins have a longer life than bills and are ultimately more cost effective to produce. However, it is not what people here want. Men do not wish to carry around euro manpurses and jingle with change all the time. It is more convenient to use bills. Unfortunately, that it what the people “buy”, in a manner of speaking, so that is what gets produced. That is how the free market works.
Now, the government could force people into using only coins by only minting coins and discontinuing bills, which I think is a good analogy to what Frimm and Canuck are suggesting governments do through executive order or tax/fee. Fortunately, the people are not so far to one end which would allow elected officials to implement something so… radical… (yet).
-
As for you Frimmel. :)
Let’s say I have chosen to accept you are 100% right?
This massive social upheaving you are talking about…� is the plan to infect huge swaths of the population with a fatal biological agent?� Because you seem to support VERY drastic change and feel that it needs to happen immediately -or else-.
There isn’t a plan, Garg. As a society we’ve barely accepted there is a problem in need of a solution. Social upheaval is what happens when there isn’t enough food and water and room to live.
We (i.e. society) can choose to change and try to prevent catastrophe and make preparation for what is likely or we can have change forced upon us by circumstances utterly beyond our control and for which we haven’t made any preparations. We can act or be acted upon.
I linked earlier to a rough outline of the sorts of things that would be required.
-
No Lhoffman, superior means, “Doesn’t dump loads of carbon into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming.” Destroying the biosphere is not cost effective.
-
My point isn’t limited to any particular technology or nation. I am just saying that investing in (not subsidizing) superior alternatives will be more effective than taxing undesirable behaviors (especially if those behaviors lack practical alternatives).
By superior I mean both long term environmental viability and long term economic viability.
-
By superior I mean both long term environmental viability and long term economic viability.
Right now, the options fitting both of these categories are few.
-
No Lhoffman, superior means, “Doesn’t dump loads of carbon into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming.” Destroying the biosphere is not cost effective.
Oh, I beg to differ, destroying the biosphere is very cost effective. All I need to do is unload all of my moms hairspray and burn my garbage; the first costs little and the second costs nothing. Ha-ha but I get your point… the environment is better to preserve in the first place than to wreck and repair. Agreed. Unfortunately, most people are not going to want to radically change their lifestyle and quality of life to combat an invisible and mostly imperceptible (to them) threat. I am not agreeing with them, I am just stating that. I for one do not want to ride my bike 14 miles to and from work every day. Or take a bus. Or a train which does not exist and would be too expensive to build. I think my definition of “superior” is just that compared to yours. Yours is defined by one element, when it is utterly impractical for it to be defined that way. Human civilization cannot be based solely on doing no harm to the earth; to believe so is erroneous and foolish. If you want to throw in the clause “and minimizes adverse effects on the environment” to my definition then good, it was my assumption that was understood as intrinsic to the discussion. The world market today (generally capitalism) cannot run on the premise you take. Even multiple national government controlled command economies could not elicit the change you seek. The base world economic system would have to be altered to the point where some sort of carbon footprint becomes currency… call it what you want, but I call it both impractical and stupid. If you really believe that radical change is the only way to survive, then more power to you and good luck. I will disagree with you the whole way.
-
I am doing my part by not procreating. :-D The cumulative environmental impact of my (potentially infinite) descendants would dwarf any damage I can do personally.
Suggested Topics
