UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[john9blue]

Gravity is a theory,what weight you assign to it compared to any other theory is personal, most people accept it exists.Climate change is a fact regardless of who or what is responsible for it.Anybody with basic equipment can monitor it for themselves.

again, we're talking about MAN-MADE global warming in particular, and the hypothesis that it will cause significant harm to our planet.

[hotfire]

http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/pleistocene.html

[Dukasaur]

Gravity is a theory,what weight you assign to it compared to any other theory is personal, most people accept it exists.Climate change is a fact regardless of who or what is responsible for it.Anybody with basic equipment can monitor it for themselves.

again, we're talking about MAN-MADE global warming in particular, and the hypothesis that it will cause significant harm to our planet.

I think it's possible to separate those ideas.

It is possible to acknowledge that man-made global warming is occurring, while still rejecting the idea that change is inherently harmful.

At least, it's possible for me.

[chang50]

Gravity is a theory,what weight you assign to it compared to any other theory is personal, most people accept it exists.Climate change is a fact regardless of who or what is responsible for it.Anybody with basic equipment can monitor it for themselves.

again, we're talking about MAN-MADE global warming in particular, and the hypothesis that it will cause significant harm to our planet.

I think it's possible to separate those ideas.

It is possible to acknowledge that man-made global warming is occurring, while still rejecting the idea that change is inherently harmful.

At least, it's possible for me.

And me.The only thing that seems totally absurd to me is that over 7 billion humans are having no effect on the climate in any direction.

[john9blue]

I think it's possible to separate those ideas.

It is possible to acknowledge that man-made global warming is occurring, while still rejecting the idea that change is inherently harmful.

At least, it's possible for me.

i guess you're right, but it seems ridiculous to think that AGW would NOT have a bad effect. anyone who thinks that would just be ignorant of the science.

And me.The only thing that seems totally absurd to me is that over 7 billion humans are having no effect on the climate in any direction.

i don't think it's all that absurd... planets are resilient things, and the vast majority of earth is not directly occupied by humans, so i can see why someone would think we don't affect the climate that much.

[chang50]

I think it's possible to separate those ideas.

It is possible to acknowledge that man-made global warming is occurring, while still rejecting the idea that change is inherently harmful.

At least, it's possible for me.

i guess you're right, but it seems ridiculous to think that AGW would NOT have a bad effect. anyone who thinks that would just be ignorant of the science.

And me.The only thing that seems totally absurd to me is that over 7 billion humans are having no effect on the climate in any direction.

i don't think it's all that absurd... planets are resilient things, and the vast majority of earth is not directly occupied by humans, so i can see why someone would think we don't affect the climate that much.

Which isn't what I said,my words were NO effect,which is impossible...

[john9blue]

Which isn't what I said,my words were NO effect,which is impossible...

there is nobody in earth who thinks that humans have ZERO effect on the climate.

[Metsfanmax]

Which isn't what I said,my words were NO effect,which is impossible...

there is nobody in earth who thinks that humans have ZERO effect on the climate.

Actually, this guy does:

[john9blue]

Actually, this guy does:

if you asked this guy whether there would be less oxygen in the atmosphere after we cut down 1000 trees, you think he'd deny it?

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, this guy does:

if you asked this guy whether there would be less oxygen in the atmosphere after we cut down 1000 trees, you think he'd deny it?

Not sure. I can bet that if you then asked him whether the removal of oxygen had any effect on the climate, he'd say no.

(Also, cutting down trees wouldn't decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.)

[john9blue]

Not sure. I can bet that if you then asked him whether the removal of oxygen had any effect on the climate, he'd say no.

(Also, cutting down trees wouldn't decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.)

it wouldn't reduce it over time? why not?

i mean, i don't think that this guy would argue that me running a space heater for a few hours has a warming effect on the climate, however small. he just doesn't think anthropogenic effects can ever be dangerous.

[Metsfanmax]

Not sure. I can bet that if you then asked him whether the removal of oxygen had any effect on the climate, he'd say no.

(Also, cutting down trees wouldn't decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.)

it wouldn't reduce it over time? why not?

The concentration of oxygen would eventually slightly decrease over time, but only because there are other sources (animals) that convert the oxygen into carbon dioxide. Removal of the trees themselves is not what decreases the oxygen concentration.

i mean, i don't think that this guy would argue that me running a space heater for a few hours has a warming effect on the climate, however small. he just doesn't think anthropogenic effects can ever be dangerous.

The guy is quite literally saying that God would not let humans alter His plan for the climate. I really don't know exactly how far he would go to defend that statement, but I bet it's pretty far.

[PLAYER57832]

Not sure. I can bet that if you then asked him whether the removal of oxygen had any effect on the climate, he'd say no.

(Also, cutting down trees wouldn't decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.)

it wouldn't reduce it over time? why not?

The concentration of oxygen would eventually slightly decrease over time, but only because there are other sources (animals) that convert the oxygen into carbon dioxide. Removal of the trees themselves is not what decreases the oxygen concentration.

LOL both of you are missing the really BIG contributor.. plankton. Trees matter, but plankton matters a lot more.

[tzor]

LOL both of you are missing the really BIG contributor.. plankton. Trees matter, but plankton matters a lot more.

I generally dismiss most of what Sheldon James Plankton Jr. does and his Chum Bucket is a container of manure. Mind you his W.I.F.E. might matter, but I'd hardly call her a "BIG" contributor.

[PLAYER57832]

Great, back to school again for me. I attended a double course on sustainability. The first week of lectures went through how all of the following concepts were based on models and how inaccurate they were.

The remaining weeks were spent explaining the variables, many of which showed we should be coming into an ice age; mocking skeptics and trying to show that their research was unbiased and that the oil companies were biased.

Any profession who in reaching their objective eliminates their position leaves me skeptical. They don't want to solve the issue, either side, as it would take away their livelihood. Grain of salt, stop saying fact.

Depends on what you are referring to, really.
Scientists only rare use terms like "fact" when talking about any kind of model or projection. The point, though, is whether you want to go with reasonable evidence (what is reasonable) or just take guesses.

When it comes to climate change, though, its not even a matter of that. The climate of Earth IS changing. That is not a model or projection, it is historical fact. Whether this trend will continue, how far is a bit of a question. BUT, before you get all exited about the "errors" and "likelihoods", remember one thing... Earth has existed for a long time. Humanity has only been around a very short time. Advanced civilization, as we know it, for a mere microsegment of that time.

Look at how even some relatively minor disasters have impacted the world. It does not take a lot of advanced calculations to understand that even a small change in the Earth's climate will lead to major disasters for humanity. Major disasters lead to war and loss of civilization.

All the "debate" about how we "cannot afford" to change, etc, etc... well, become moot. Either we change or... we WILL be forced to change.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL both of you are missing the really BIG contributor.. plankton. Trees matter, but plankton matters a lot more.

I generally dismiss most of what Sheldon James Plankton Jr. does and his Chum Bucket is a container of manure. Mind you his W.I.F.E. might matter, but I'd hardly call her a "BIG" contributor.

Fie on thee! Without Spongebob, my kids would be forced to actually watch EDUCATIONAL TV! (or maybe even go outside and play! )

[_sabotage_]

Player,
Climate has changed, is changing and always will be changing.

I object to the direction they are trying to take it. They want to profit off it, build departments on it in universities and then teach people how to reduce their energy by 8% a year. They simultaneously try to teach you that we are dependent on the system and getting off of it is impractical. The company sustainability spokesmen will come out and tell us how much it's improved and how everything is fine, that is what they are creating out of it. But it's all lies. And they are going to try to rob you to pay for it.

The tools are available in many forms to fit most environments for a sustainable high quality lifestyle that would solve all the issues that these people want to service. I'm building a zero energy greenhouse, setting up hugelkultur blueberries, hemp and mushrooms.

The sustainability class has a thousand students who will all be doing nothing except learning how to say global warming! My bad, climate change (cuz we don't know if it's getting hotter or colder). Those thousand students could be learning to actually sustain themselves. Those environmentalists could spend time designing stuff, being relevant to a person's daily life instead of trapped in the endless blabble.

Because regardless of whether they are right or wrong, how we sustain ourselves could definitely be improved on, but teaching us a system which is antithetical to the practices of the system won't happen through the system. When they ask you to go further into poverty to pay carbon taxes, which is what they spent a week convinces us was "the only way", don't think it will go towards anything other than enriching the top of the system. We will be no more capable of sustaining ourselves than ever, we'll be less so.

[Metsfanmax]

Because regardless of whether they are right or wrong, how we sustain ourselves could definitely be improved on, but teaching us a system which is antithetical to the practices of the system won't happen through the system. When they ask you to to further into poverty to pay carbon taxes, which is what they spent a week convinces us was "the only way", don't think it will go towards anything other than enriching the top of the system. We will be no more capable of sustaining ourselves than ever, we'll be less so.

This is why I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax; all revenues collected from the tax should be returned to taxpayers. This is the proper way for government to function when it comes to correcting a market distortion, so that consumers are not strongly penalized. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, implemented the right way, would leave two-thirds of households breaking even or better off.

[_sabotage_]

Support it all you want, when it comes out looking like Obamacare, you can say but I supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not this.

They will set up the department, it will grow, the regulations will be intrusive but not helpful on the individual scale and in bed with the big guys at the other end.

[Metsfanmax]

Support it all you want, when it comes out looking like Obamacare, you can say but I supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not this.

They will set up the department, it will grow, the regulations will be intrusive but not helpful on the individual scale and in bed with the big guys at the other end.

The scope of the problem is big enough that a lack of efficiency in the solution does not seriously concern me. Even if the solution makes some people more wealthy (and no doubt it will, by favoring those who invest early in solar, wind, etc.), that's not a reason to oppose it. When I weigh the issues of increased concentration of wealth versus the flooding of coastal cities and island nations, the more important one is clear in my mind.

[BigBallinStalin]

Support it all you want, when it comes out looking like Obamacare, you can say but I supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not this.

They will set up the department, it will grow, the regulations will be intrusive but not helpful on the individual scale and in bed with the big guys at the other end.

The scope of the problem is big enough that a lack of efficiency in the solution does not seriously concern me. Even if the solution makes some people more wealthy (and no doubt it will, by favoring those who invest early in solar, wind, etc.), that's not a reason to oppose it. When I weigh the issues of increased concentration of wealth versus the flooding of coastal cities and island nations, the more important one is clear in my mind.

The ends justify the means?

[Metsfanmax]

Support it all you want, when it comes out looking like Obamacare, you can say but I supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not this.

They will set up the department, it will grow, the regulations will be intrusive but not helpful on the individual scale and in bed with the big guys at the other end.

The scope of the problem is big enough that a lack of efficiency in the solution does not seriously concern me. Even if the solution makes some people more wealthy (and no doubt it will, by favoring those who invest early in solar, wind, etc.), that's not a reason to oppose it. When I weigh the issues of increased concentration of wealth versus the flooding of coastal cities and island nations, the more important one is clear in my mind.

The ends justify the means?

I'm a utilitarian; you haven't learned that about me yet?

[_sabotage_]

Well some of the initiatives of the proposed carbon tax are anything but utilitarian. Only certain species are deemed to meet the carbon credit, and so large scale old grow forests are being chopped down to plant the new crop in order to get carbon credits.

I would think a utilitarian might be happy to use what is already there, and someone concerned with the environment would want to abort this pillage.

[Metsfanmax]

Well some of the initiatives of the proposed carbon tax are anything but utilitarian. Only certain species are deemed to meet the carbon credit, and so large scale old grow forests are being chopped down to plant the new crop in order to get carbon credits.

I would think a utilitarian might be happy to use what is already there, and someone concerned with the environment would want to abort this pillage.

Not sure what you're referring to. I'm referring to a very simple system: a tax on any emissions of carbon dioxide by any producer that introduces it into the market. I don't really agree with any of the systems that deal with 'carbon credits.' Those are separate systems, and while still market-based, are not great because they can be easily corrupted by the market.

[_sabotage_]

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?