There shouldn’t be a policy debate at all because there is no climate science.
Moralizing ought to go to that.
There’s a system of payoffs, aka funding, driven by the people funded.
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by rhhardin
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by DaveW
“We can roughly divide climate change essays into two groups, namely those that assume the threat is real and those that do not. ”
Well possibly, but I’m one of those who find the threat to be too poorly defined (has there ever actually been a previous CO2 induced thermageddeon?) and of unknown uncertainty (how likely?) to have a strong opinion. All I really know is that atmospheric CO2 seems to be rising (we have seemingly reliable data and therefore low uncertainty), human emissions are likely contributing to the rise (mostly poor quality data, and therefore, moderate uncertainty), and no real idea if this is good or bad for the planet (lots of handwaving, but variable and inconsistent data, therefore, very high uncertainty). Therefore, I’d have to agree that Wells’ analysis is based on a false assumption (that the science is settled) and should be disregarded.
Coronal Mass Ejections – that is a real danger to our power grid and I’m annoyed that governments do not take it more seriously. We should be spending more on this: they happen regularly and are potentially devastating.
Asteroid strikes – we are now monitoring the skies for them (and possibly developing contingency plans for doing something more if needed). I think that is good and may result in both direct and spinoff benefits at a low cost. CAGW should be treated similarly.
The Yellowstone Caldera – well we are monitoring it, but I don’t think we have much hope of doing anything about it. If there is research on letting the pressure out of building volcanos then I suppose that is good, but if it ever gets to the stage of a field test, then I would become a Precautionary Principle fan, especially if a predicted eruption was based on an unverified model.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Wagathon
And, Al Gore is selling salvation. Carbon credits should be reborn as a charitable donation. That’ll save the world.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Alan Poirier
The climate debate is all about false moralizing. It is portrayed by environmentalists as an end-of-world scenario when it is nothing of the kind. Even if you believed CO2 was a vile GHG (I do not) ask yourself why must we stop producing it? The eco-freaks make the argument that if we don’t, then we will destroy all life. Let’s assume for the moment they’re right. That doesn’t mean we need to stop the production of CO2. Technology already exists to sequester CO2, to turn it into food, to turn it into fuel. Why are those approaches not being pursued with the utmost vigor? We could have fish food plants attached to power plants adjacent to fish ponds and thus create a virtuous circle. But, no, the eco-freaks want to end our production of CO2. It has nothing to do with CO2. It has everything to do with the hatred of modern life and a childish belief in some idyllic agrarian past. This is an ideological struggle masquerading as a moral/ethical struggle. It is a religious battle pure and simple, between the simple-minded and modernists.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Jim D
From the linked article “It is clearly a scientific fact that the world’s regional climates are changing substantially and at unprecedented speed as a result of the global warming produced by the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity (in particular by the industrialisation of the West). ”
Yes, the first step is to realize that there is a problem. This will guide and incentivize the correct pragmatic actions, as outlined in this paragraph, and I also agree with this:
“The greenhouse gas build-up cannot be wished away by the kind of pragmatic, social choice guided exercise I have been recommending. It must be dealt with in the medium term, but through the structural transformation of our carbon economy rather than global austerity. That will include both developing scalable technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere (such as genetically modified algae and trees) and reducing the carbon intensity of our high energy life-styles (for which we already have some existing technologies, such as nuclear power). But note that such innovations require no prior global agreement to set in train, but can be developed and pioneered by a handful of big industrial economies acting on the moral concerns of their own citizens.”
Actions will be nation-based. Countries will do what is pragmatic under the guiding principle that burning all known fossil fuels is not the direction to go.
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by GaryM
Think of ‘racist,’ sexist,’ homophone,’ ‘radical right winger.’ The tactic is ubiquitous in progressivism.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by willard (@nevaudit)
I point at this:
> If you control the language you control the politics. Think of ‘denier’, ‘carbon pollution’, etc.
Then I point at this:
> Try having a discussion with an alarmist [...] The moral blankness of their arguments clearly shows [...]
That is all.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by GaryM
“…clearly a scientific fact….”
My, how sciency of them.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Jim D
Wells also says “A high price on carbon in a few large rich countries (preferably via a non-regressive carbon tax) supplemented with regulations where market forces have less bite (e.g. to force the construction industry to develop more energy efficient methods and materials) and research subsidies would provide the necessary incentives. ”
It is a start that the skeptics are starting to accept these types of articles, because this shows that common ground is within reach.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Mi Cro
“Naive question here: Where is UHI in this 122,000,000 data point record, or can it be isolated? Surely you’d think that effect would nudge the record up a little more than you show.”
Well, I can’t say. But remember, temperature isn’t what’s important, it’s the daily difference in temp. And how would you describe the daily difference of temp change of a city? It max temp would slowly change over time, but max temp tomorrow is going to be about the same as today, right? Absolute max temp has gone up in some places, but the difference, basically the difference between how much the temp went up today and then drops tonight, and then vise versa. Those are the keys, and besides doing a yearly average of difference, the plot of daily difference in the extra tropics show the evolution due to the change in the length of day. This slope has changed, maybe that’s your UHI?
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by GaryM
willard,
You keep on listening for the dog whistle. Maybe somebody will come by and scratch you behind your ears.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Jim Zuccaro
Climate change has occurred for 4 billion year prior to human existence, so now we argue about attribution of climate change to humans.
Geology abides: Eldridge Moores had a bumper sticker that said “STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT”
↧
Comment on Pentagon’s war against climate change by omanuel
I highly recommend Tony Heller’s presentation at the ICCC on The Emperor’s New Climate”
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by willard (@nevaudit)
Does Douglas Spencer meets your definition of a conservative, GaryM?
Here:
In November 2008 he spoke about Nietzsche at an H.L. Mencken Club event. By early 2009, Spencer could no longer hold back his fixation on “contemporary white consciousness.” In a May 29, 2009 TakiMag piece entitled “White Like Me” Spencer opined, “In our increasingly globalized world (it’s not just a cliché), race hasn’t been obscured or overcome, as many had hoped, but heightened and magnified—and contemporary white consciousness, if we’re to use this term, is so complicated and bizarre (more on that below) that no serious cultural publication should refrain from discussing it.”
http://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/race-racism-and-white-nationalism/567-who-is-richard-spencer
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Rob Ellison
So we have a risk of something indeterminate in a complex, nonlinear and chaotically coupled climate system? And the solution we don’t like is cheap energy and Lomborg style ‘phenomenal’ economic and social goals?
Beware a biome in seers clothing – there are many horses in the stream.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Ragnaar
“A single cremation alone calls for average temperatures of 1,400 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, which releases about 573 pounds of carbon dioxide…” – http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/cremation-considered-green-burial-option
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Mi Cro
Jan, nice of you to visit.
“From looking at the plot, you conclude that there wasn’t any warming trend in the data. Is this correct?”
I don’t use the daily data to find a warming trend, I use the yearly data.
The daily data I calculated both slope and offset for each peak to peak pairs. Offset jumped all over, slope however did have a slight trend, great fit to a straight line lots 0.99′s, but the slope does change in a constant direction. But it has what could be an inflection point at the end, but it could also be nothing. I need more data.
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Jim Zuccaro
So Steve Mosher,
With regard to coercive governance, isn’t Antoropogenic Global Warming really just an other manifestation of the human age old conflict of ‘who gets what’?
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Ragnaar
Change horses in mid-stream. Yay or Neigh?
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Jim Zuccaro
David,
there are too such paths. they are personal choice. conservation of resources, for the sake of not wasting that which is limited.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
