Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

poop is fun to argue with because he trolls me as much as I troll him.

savy is fun to argue with because his tone is filled with so much contempt. He's like a less ranty keith.

mojo is less fun to argue with because he doesn't get sucked into emotional reactions, he sticks to the facts whilst maintaining a neutral tone.

[Poopadoop]

mojo is less fun to argue with because he doesn't get sucked into emotional reactions

You just haven't been pushing the right buttons. Try calling him a lady or saying that Islam is pure evil.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You just haven't been pushing the right buttons. Try calling him a lady or saying that Islam is pure evil.

Lazy hatin' inspires my melodramatic side.

[Poopadoop]

Lazy hatin' inspires my melodramatic side.

Ah well sorry if I pissed you off that time.

So it's true that 1/0 doesn't equal infinity? It makes sense to me that it doesn't, but I've seen it argued otherwise.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ah well sorry if I pissed you off that time.

No worries; if you did, I got over it.

So it's true that 1/0 doesn't equal infinity? It makes sense to me that it doesn't, but I've seen it argued otherwise.

1/x goes to 0 as x tends toward infinity.
y/0 is undefined for all y.
(Except sometimes using L'Hopital's rule)

It's ambiguous use of language to say that anything can equal infinity. Infinity is not, strictly speaking, a number. It is a concept of unendingness. There are some uses of infinity as a number, e.g. in infinite sums, and some other cases, but those are usually additionally defined or constrained infinities which a textbook glazes over in one passing phrase. Usually, that phrase involves the word convergence.

[OngBonga]

Yes, they're opposite to each other. In fact they're as different as you can get since each is defined in terms of its precise opposite relation to the other.

Yes but here we're falling into the trap of thinking that polar opposite means as different as it's possible to be. That isn't the case in the examples I'm talking of. For example, it wouldn't be the case to think that division is more different to multiplication than addition is.

[Poopadoop]

Yes but here we're falling into the trap of thinking that polar opposite means as different as it's possible to be. That isn't the case in the examples I'm talking of. For example, it wouldn't be the case to think that division is more different to multiplication than addition is.

Depends on whether you include things outside of the frame or not. North is more similar to South than it is to orange in the sense that it refers to a direction within a coordinate frame.

But 'more similar than something else is' != 'identical'.

A banana is more similar to an apple than it is to a bicycle. But that doesn't mean bananas and apples are identical.

[Savy]

Well being straight is similar to being gay as they are both sexual preferences therefore they are same. And as you're all a bunch of fags that's the first bit of evidence supporting ong.

[Poopadoop]

Well being straight is similar to being gay as they are both sexual preferences therefore they are same. And as you're all a bunch of fags that's the first bit of evidence supporting ong.

You know the kind of funny where someone is trying to be funny but fails? Then you laugh at the fail?

That's the level of funny you're on here.

[Savy]

You know the kind of funny where someone is trying to be funny but fails? Then you laugh at the fail?

That's the level of funny you're on here.

They're not the same thing?

[Poopadoop]

They're not the same thing?

Yes, they're both funny, but the laughs are directed in an opposite direction. So yes there's an Ongdentity involved.

[Savy]

Yes, they're both funny, but the laughs are directed in an opposite direction. So yes there's an Ongdentity involved.

Very much depends on what I was going for.

[OngBonga]

Well being straight is similar to being gay as they are both sexual preferences therefore they are same. And as you're all a bunch of fags that's the first bit of evidence supporting ong.

Savy trying to win the thread off poop? Close, but no cigar.

[OngBonga]

Yeah but what about now? Disprove it again, things might have changed. You can only disprove it by doing so over and over again, because you can't be certain that the method of disproval still applies.

[Poopadoop]

Well your present goes on for infinity so we're still not in your future yet.

[Jack Sawyer]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...to-us-schools/

Do not speak of it!

You might think that science would deserve a breather after all that, but it's not to be. Yesterday, Politicoreported that the staff of the Department of Energy's Office of International Climate and Clean Energy have been told to avoid using the term "climate change" at all. While a DOE spokesman denied that this was a formal policy, the directive allegedly was handed down in a meeting. Staff was told that the term would cause a "visceral reaction" among the new senior staff, including Department head Rick Perry.

It's officially begun. Do not speak of the heresy that is climate change. DO NOT!

[MadMojoMonkey]

SMH.

Ostriches hiding their heads in the sand.
I doubt that's a real thing for ostriches, but damn if it doesn't describe people.

[JKDS]

SMH.

Ostriches hiding their heads in the sand.
I doubt that's a real thing for ostriches, but damn if it doesn't describe people.

http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/e...myths-toad.jpg

[BananaStand]

I've mostly stayed out of the climate change debate, so I admit that I'm somewhat un-educated on the topic. But maybe someone in this thread can help clear up some nagging questions I have.

Aren't glaciers supposed to melt?

Wasn't most of the world covered in miles-thick ice at one point in time? All that ice melted without any help from coal power plants or car exhaust.

Why is it that we've now decided the earth has the 'perfect amount' of ice on it, and suddenly we have to scramble to stop any more melting.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've mostly stayed out of the climate change debate, so I admit that I'm somewhat un-educated on the topic. But maybe someone in this thread can help clear up some nagging questions I have.

That's how I first approached this thread, too.

What I've learned:
The biggest problem is the cost-benefit analysis of taking action is a total unknown.

Aren't glaciers supposed to melt?

As I was taught in Ethics class, "supposed to" is a moral assertion.
I'm not sure what you're asking, unless you're stipulating that glaciers do as the glaciers' god(s) demand(s).


Can you restate the question?

Wasn't most of the world covered in miles-thick ice at one point in time? All that ice melted without any help from coal power plants or car exhaust.

Yes.

Why is it that we've now decided the earth has the 'perfect amount' of ice on it, and suddenly we have to scramble to stop any more melting.

I don't think any credible person is citing the amount of ice as a part of their case.

It kinda goes like this: The world changes climate all by itself. It usually does so mind-blowingly slowly. Since the rise of human civilization, the climate of the Earth has been changing at a not so slow rate.
The data is astoundingly clear that the climate is changing, and warming. It is clear that the timing coincides with people's presence.

It seems not-stupid to correlate those facts, but it is an assumption. This is a talking point of CC deniers.

What is not at all clear is what portion of the warming is due to human impact and what amount was going to happen anyway in the Earth's natural climate evolution?
This matters a huge deal, because if humans are barely affecting it, then nothing to really worry about, and inexpensive, non-intrusive changes fix our impact. If it's basically all us, or worse, more than us (e.g. if the Earth would have been cooling if not for our impact), then we have a serious problem to deal with, which will probably require intrusive changes to Earth culture.

[BananaStand]

If it's basically all us, or worse, more than us (e.g. if the Earth would have been cooling if not for our impact), then we have a serious problem to deal with, which will probably require intrusive changes to Earth culture.

Why? Why is it a serious problem to deal with? Isn't a slightly warmer climate more suitable for human life anyway? Longer growing seasons, people leave their house more, etc etc etc.

I guess there will be less real estate at sea level, but people can move.

Also, in regards to dealing with this serious problem..
A) What good is done if America passes all kinds of strict regulations on businesses designed to lessen their CC impact, but at the same time Russia, China, Mexico, and other industrialized nations do nothing? Wouldn't that just put US companies at a disadvantage for no reason? What purpose is served by that?

B) I read somewhere that at the current rate of population growth, by the year 2600, there will be so many humans on earth that we would all have to stand upright, shoulder to shoulder, in order to all fit on land. Isn't it more likely that one of the other many, many, many, many consequences of overpopulation will force these 'intrusive changes to Earth culture', long before climate change does?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why? Why is it a serious problem to deal with? Isn't a slightly warmer climate more suitable for human life anyway? Longer growing seasons, people leave their house more, etc etc etc.

I guess there will be less real estate at sea level, but people can move.

Because it's not the humans (with our ability to climate control the inside of buildings, i.e. our own environments) which are threatened by the rapid change.

In general, I don't see the direct impact on humans as a real problem. We live in literally every climate on Earth from tropical rain forests to the icy desert of Antarctica. Climate doesn't slow us down in that regard.

The changes will be in mass extinction of oceanic life and migration / extinction of many land-based flora and fauna.

Eventually, survivors will adapt and speciate into new animals, but that is a slow process, and the expected extinctions will take hundreds of thousands of years to recover from, in terms of biological mass and diversity.

Also, in regards to dealing with this serious problem..
A) What good is done if America passes all kinds of strict regulations on businesses designed to lessen their CC impact, but at the same time Russia, China, Mexico, and other industrialized nations do nothing? Wouldn't that just put US companies at a disadvantage for no reason? What purpose is served by that?

Whatever good would be, if you aren't considering it along with the bad, then your conclusions will be biased.

... for no reason? Whatever the answer(s) is/are to your first question provide the reason.
Whether or not action is taken, there will be severe outcomes. No decisions made on this scale would "just" do anything. They will have vast and nuanced consequences, some of which will be dramatic for at least some people. Nothing which happens will be "for no reason" when we're talking national policies.

The purposes served would be many and varied, some pleasant, and some not so much.

(I feel like you are the student who comes to my office telling me they don't understand the homework, and when I ask them to show me what they have so far, they say, "I don't have anything." Well... come back when you know what you're confused about. I'll gladly explain to you what you don't understand, but if you're not even trying to understand, well... I can't learn for you.)

B) I read somewhere that at the current rate of population growth, by the year 2600, there will be so many humans on earth that we would all have to stand upright, shoulder to shoulder, in order to all fit on land. Isn't it more likely that one of the other many, many, many, many consequences of overpopulation will force these 'intrusive changes to Earth culture', long before climate change does?

There are countless examples of human societies which go through booms and leveling off periods.
There are 0 examples of human populations experiencing unmitigated exponential growth.

Exponential growth happens when the resources are rich for the current population. When the population grows to consume the resources, then the growth rate slows or stops, sometimes bouncing up and down in cycles (think grasshopper / locust swarms). FYI Grasshoppers and locusts are the same species. When the resources are rich enough, the population changes form. Individuals dramatically increase in size and the population booms exponentially. Eventually, the swarm exhausts the resources in its immediate area and has to move. Sooner or later, the resources run out and the population experiences a dramatic reduction in numbers, and the newborn insects will not morph into the large size of locusts.

***
Exponential growth is not the only expected behavior for a population over "long" time frames.

[BananaStand]

The changes will be in mass extinction of oceanic life and migration / extinction of many land-based flora and fauna.

Sounds like you're saying there are no consequences to climate change at all.

(I feel like you are the student who comes to my office telling me they don't understand the homework,

God I hope that student punched you in the face.

Ok Professor Fudgeknot, I'll rephrase the question. Would it be a practical application of government to pursue an agenda of taxes and regulations designed to reverse climate change? Does it matter that other governments won't also participate, therefore undermining your efforts in the first place?

Exponential growth is not the only expected behavior for a population over "long" time frames.

No shit Sherlock. But your long-winded, dick-toned, soliloquy about the likelihood of exponential population growth doesn't answer the question.

Of course I don't expect we'll ever see a day where people are standing shoulder to shoulder trying not to fall into the ocean. I expect something will slow or reverse population growth before that. Whatever that change is, it will have a corresponding change on climate if in fact, human population is the cause of climate change.

So my point is, why do anything about climate change as long as population is growing? When population growth stops, so will climate change, no?

[a500lbgorilla]

I've mostly stayed out of the climate change debate, so I admit that I'm somewhat un-educated on the topic. But maybe someone in this thread can help clear up some nagging questions I have.

Aren't glaciers supposed to melt?

Wasn't most of the world covered in miles-thick ice at one point in time? All that ice melted without any help from coal power plants or car exhaust.

Why is it that we've now decided the earth has the 'perfect amount' of ice on it, and suddenly we have to scramble to stop any more melting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/

<@:^)

[OngBonga]

B) I read somewhere that at the current rate of population growth, by the year 2600, there will be so many humans on earth that we would all have to stand upright, shoulder to shoulder, in order to all fit on land. Isn't it more likely that one of the other many, many, many, many consequences of overpopulation will force these 'intrusive changes to Earth culture', long before climate change does?

This must be bollocks. There's an idea here that you could fit the entire population of the world on the Isle of Wight. A bit of googling tells me that this was probably true when the thought experiment was first posed nearly a century ago... but certainly not now. Still, you'd only need around four times that area to get the current population standing shoulder to shoulder. So, Greater London should do it.

I realise we're talking 600 years in the future, and the population has soared in just the last century, but for the population to go from *crammed into Greater London* to *filling up the entire world*, well it seems very unlikely to me. Perhaps a mathematician can convince me otherwise, but I'd be surprised if rabbits can fuck that much.

I agree with you though, in the sense that I feel like we're more likely to encounter more profound climate threats than the supposed warming we're currently experiencing. It's a matter of time before a volcano cools the planet for a decade or two. We all know about Yellowstone, that seems like a more serious climate threat than humans shitting out carbon.

[BananaStand]

This must be bollocks.

Could be. But the idea came from someone alot more informed about science than I am.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/785018

I believe he goes on to suggest that the electricity consumed by that many people would make the earth glow red instead of blue.

[OngBonga]

"population doubling every 40 years"

Yeah this is fucking ludicrous exponential growth, and at that rate yes I can see how that might happen. However, I really don't think we can sustain that kind of population increase. Current trends seem to hint that we'll be at 11 billion by 2100, which is way short of the required growth. For Hawking to be right, we'd need the population to be at 14 billion by 2060, then 28 billion by 2100.

Hawking is talking out of his arse. In a stupid fake American accent, no less.

[BananaStand]

"population doubling every 40 years"

Yeah this is fucking ludicrous exponential growth

Hawking is talking out of his arse

I'm not sure where he's getting the 1.9% number, but I doubt he got it from his arse. A simple google inquiry told me that the most recent data for Earth's population growth is 1.1%. Which means that population doubles every 65-ish years.

So if we're at 7.5 billion now, that's 15 billion by 2082, 30 billion by 2147, and so on.

By 2600, at that rate, we'll have 3.8 TRILLION people on the planet.

[OngBonga]

I'm not sure where he's getting the 1.9% number, but I doubt he got it from his arse. A simple google inquiry told me that the most recent data for Earth's population growth is 1.1%. Which means that population doubles every 65-ish years.

So if we're at 7.5 billion now, that's 15 billion by 2082, 30 billion by 2147, and so on.

By 2600, at that rate, we'll have 3.8 TRILLION people on the planet.

Well this is way short of Howking's figure. I half arsed crunched his numbers, but didn't bother to post the workings. It was hundreds of trillions.

He's definitely talking out of his arse. He's just throwing shock numbers out there because he knows that lots of people have immense respect for him, know he's very clever, and thus listen to him. He probably gets a hand job off a honey government employee in return for saying things like this.

[Poopadoop]

He probably gets a hand job off a honey government employee in return for saying things like this.

(in electronic voice) "Oh baby, that's it. Work the head. I'm getting you a fellowship"

[BananaStand]

Still though. I'm not much of a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that 3.8 trillion is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way more than the earth has the capacity for.

Scientifically speaking

[OngBonga]

Still though. I'm not much of a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that 3.8 trillion is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way more than the earth has the capacity for.

Scientifically speaking

Yeah I'm not going to argue against this. We'll reach critical mass long before 2600, assuming no Yellowstone event.

[Savy]

Start off saying you know nothing about the subject yet pick a side anyway and argue the toss (rudely) with people when they try and explain things to you.

[BananaStand]

Start off saying you know nothing about the subject

False. I said I've mostly stayed out of it, and am only 'somewhat un-educated'. I admit I'm no expert, but I'm a long way from "knowing nothing"

yet pick a side anyway

False again. I'm not even sure what you mean by "side". I agree that the data says the earth is warming. Now I want someone to tell me why I should give a shit.

and argue the toss

"argue the toss"? Is that a British phrase? Sorry, I don't speak toothless redcoat.

(rudely)

He was being a stuffy bitch

with people when they try and explain things to you.

He didn't explain anything. He just elaborated on shit that I already knew which I can only interpret as a lame attempt at brain-flexing. I find that to be stuffy, and off-putting. Now he knows.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me why any human efforts to reverse climate change would be practical or effective.

[BankItDrew]

^^^^^^

Sorry, I'm not a scientist, able to explain it to you. I just believe them.

[BananaStand]

^^^^^^

Sorry, I'm not a scientist, able to explain it to you. I just believe them.

Believe what? All science seems to be saying is that "Earth is warming, and it's probably because of people". Ok, I believe them too.

However, they don't seem to have any kind of practical or effective solution.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...rk-in-epa.html

Obama's expensive regulation wouldn't make a discernible difference. By 2030 -- if it met its goal -- it might cut global carbon emissions by 1 percent.

The Earth will not notice.

However, people who pay for heat and electricity would notice. The Obama rule demanded power plants emit less CO2. Everyone would pay more -- for no useful reason.

This is my whole point. Combating climate change is not a practical application of government power

[CoccoBill]

If one country out of 200ish can make a 1% dent without really even trying, that's a pretty good start? I don't think anyone's expecting the US to fix the global climate all by itself. What they should do, however, is their fair share.

[BananaStand]

If one country out of 200ish can make a 1% dent without really even trying, that's a pretty good start? I don't think anyone's expecting the US to fix the global climate all by itself. What they should do, however, is their fair share.

Major emphasis on the word "IF". Also, it's disingenuous to refer to the US as one country out of 200. We're responsible for way way way more than 1/200 of the world's carbon emissions, so in that sense, a 1% is not much of a start.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, but I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that the US is responsible for a fifth, a quarter, or even a third of the world's carbon emissions. Therefore, if every other place in the world took the same measures as us, then the total global reduction would only be 3 to 5%.

and in regards to "fair", how is it "fair" to force US companies to operate under oppressive regulations that put them at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. Moreover, this doesn't even consider the unintended consequences of market forces. For example, as regulations increase the price of US goods, then demand for those goods will fall, and they will be replaced by cheaper foreign alternatives. That means the companies that are still polluting the most are now producing more. Doesn't that undermine the purpose of the regulations in the first place?

[VanDam]

It is real, and will be the death of mankind.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is real, and will be the death of mankind.

Yes... and no.

Our habitats and eating habits will be altered, but we're not going extinct over any foreseeable amount of climate change.

Humans live in every known environment on the planet and we've even made our own orbiting environments.

So long as thermodynamics remains exploitable for energy sources and engines, we'll be able to make our own food and environments, no matter what happens to the Earth's climate.

I'm not suggesting that this is a best-case scenario, but the notion that humans are threatened by climate change is superficial. Our economies will change (as they always do). The coastlines will change (as they always do). Plants and animals will become extinct and new plants and animals will speciate from those which are not extinct (as they always do).

The questions we face are:
How much that could be lost is precious to us?
How much are we willing to sacrifice and spend to prevent that loss?

[BananaStand]

The questions we face are:
How much that could be lost is precious to us?
How much are we willing to sacrifice and spend to prevent that loss?

If those questions are unanswered....should government be conducting policy as if they were answered?

[Savy]

If those questions are unanswered....should government be conducting policy as if they were answered?

Those type of questions are kind of the whole point of government.

[BananaStand]

Those type of questions are kind of the whole point of government.

Uh, no.

I mean. really....no

You're a million percent wrong

[Jack Sawyer]

If those questions are unanswered....should government be conducting policy as if they were answered?

Nah, they shouldn't. They should just let the planet go to shit. Make it a water world first though, like Manaan. Going to the Maldives? Good luck finding them on the map, or take a submarine. Going to the Netherlands? Bring scuba gear.


Paris Accords? Whole lot of paper good for wiping asses with. Carbon tax? Yet another tax I don't want to pay. If the whole planet goes to shit, then I won’t have to pay anyone any taxes anyway.


Savy’s excellent comic explaining the situation precisely? https://xkcd.com/1732/ ? Whole load of crap.


And in the meantime, let’s gag all research about it. Let’s not even talk about it. Take it off schoolbooks. Do not speak of it! Whatever “it” may be. Nothing to see here.


Carry on.

[CoccoBill]

^I'd think security is very much the raison d'etre of a government, and climate change is very much a security issue, directly, financially and geopolitically.

[OngBonga]

^I'd think security is very much the raison d'etre of a government, and climate change is very much a security issue, directly, financially and geopolitically.

Your language here is amusing. You "think" something that is not really disputed, while the questionable aspect, ie the threat to humans, is "very much" real.

[CoccoBill]

Your language here is amusing. You "think" something that is not really disputed, while the questionable aspect, ie the threat to humans, is "very much" real.

I think it's entirely accurate. Whether security is a task for the government can be debated, but climate change having security implications can not.

[OngBonga]

I think it's entirely accurate. Whether security is a task for the government can be debated, but climate change having security implications can not.

Well yeah we can debate the role of government, but 90%+ of people will agree that security is indeed part of their remit. Now while a similar percentage of people agree that climate change is happening, I don't think there's a common consensus that it is a security threat. I mean first we need to define security threat. Isn't a hindered economy a potential security threat? How much of a role does the economy play in keeping relative peace in the first world? How much damage can we afford to do to the economy to mitigate the threat of climate change, before we cause more damage?

These questions are why I find your comment amusing. Sure you'll find people who don't think security is a job for government, but it's a small minority. Climate change is a can of worms, and when you use language like "security threat", it's rhetoric and is entirely up for debate.

[CoccoBill]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-te...your-life.html

Climate change is just a side topic here, but this is a good explainlikeimfive summary and altogether an awesome blog post (like everything on the site).

[Jack Sawyer]

[CoccoBill]

I understand what you mean and recognize it, I just disagree. Climate change is always a security issue, whether it's getting warmer or colder. Even if it isn't changing at the moment, possible changes always have security consequences, whether its 10 meters of either water or ice on top of New York, a billion global displaced people seeking refuge, loss of crops, natural disasters like droughts, floods or hurricanes etc. Now, whether those are an acute ongoing threat at the moment is another different question that could be debated. Although it really shouldn't.

[a500lbgorilla]

For your consideration

[acheter]

Explain why you think that.

[OngBonga]

Explain why you think that.

Epic first post.

[Poopadoop]

Explain why you think that.

I think we have found our wuf troll account.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

Current state of affairs.

Conservative ad:




Meanwhile, in Gotham City

Trump Administration Is Removing Climate Change Research from Government Websites

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...&jumival=18871

[BananaStand]

The claims in that video seem kinda dubious. Is it really 97%? Makes sense that 97% of scientists agree that temps are rising, but I don't recall seeing any other source claim that 97% of scientists believe that humans are responsible. In fact, everything else I've seen on the subject suggests that is a major point of contention.

Regardless of the level of consensus on the causes, science doesn't seem to be very close to any kind of impactful solution. Even the best efforts of government regulators can only hope to cut carbon emissions by virtually negligible levels. And those efforts are undermined by other nations who do not implement the same measures.

So what's the point?

I've asked this question now several times and no one seems to have an answer. If the causes of the problem are not even agreed upon, and the solutions to the problem have minimal impact, then is it a practical and logical for a single government to be expending time and resources working on this issue?

[CoccoBill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

There are plenty of potential solutions, from limiting emissions, carbon harvesting, cleaner energy etc. Just investing more in nuclear power would make a big change. Your argument seems to be that when you're in a car speeding towards a wall, if there's no time to stop the car completely why even bother braking. BTW, pretty much all other governments are doing their share, for example China has been pretty much exemplary.

https://www.c2es.org/publications/ch...mate-agreement

[BananaStand]

There are plenty of potential solutions, from limiting emissions, carbon harvesting, cleaner energy etc. Just investing more in nuclear power would make a big change.

I don't think you can prove definitively that marginal reductions in pollution will reverse climate change.

Your argument seems to be that when you're in a car speeding towards a wall, if there's no time to stop the car completely why even bother braking.

Shitty analogy because it assumes that there are no side effects or unintended consequences of braking. If it doesn't matter whether you hit the wall at 100 mph or 95 mph (you're dead either way), then it seems that when it comes to braking, the only salient consideration would be for those side effects, or unintended consequences. Everything else is null.

BTW, pretty much all other governments are doing their share, for example China has been pretty much exemplary.

Just fuck off with this. If you believe this then you should pry open your skull with a screwdriver, scoop out your brain and bury it in the woods.

China is a notorious polluter. If they happen to clean up alot, it's because they make such a big fucking mess in the first place. And their clean up efforts are no where near commensurate with the amount of pollution they produce.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/ran...by_country.jsp

[CoccoBill]

I don't think you can prove definitively that marginal reductions in pollution will reverse climate change.

That statement is so loaded you should be required a permit to wield it. No, _I_, as a non-a-scientist, can't _definitely_ prove that _marginal_ reductions will _reverse_ climate change. The actual scientists, however, have demonstrated that with current technology it's entirely possible to stop it from making the planet a shitty place to live.

Shitty analogy because it assumes that there are no side effects or unintended consequences of braking. If it doesn't matter whether you hit the wall at 100 mph or 95 mph (you're dead either way), then it seems that when it comes to braking, the only salient consideration would be for those side effects, or unintended consequences. Everything else is null.

Clearly not everyone is going to die so 100mph is way exaggerated, maybe 40mph would be closer. Getting from 40mph to even say 20-30mph would be nice, and worth every penny imo. You do realize that there's an excellent chance that the possible costs of a runaway climate change far exceed any economical measures taken now.

Just fuck off with this. If you believe this then you should pry open your skull with a screwdriver, scoop out your brain and bury it in the woods.

China is a notorious polluter. If they happen to clean up alot, it's because they make such a big fucking mess in the first place. And their clean up efforts are no where near commensurate with the amount of pollution they produce.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/ran...by_country.jsp

Nice change of goal posts. The fact remains that other countries are doing what's agreed.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

[BananaStand]

Nice change of goal posts. The fact remains that other countries are doing what's agreed.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

They website you linked rates China below sufficient. Two posts ago you used the word 'exemplary'.

How about you just give this shit up now before you embarass yourself too much.

You can play with the stats all you want, but if you come up with any conclusion other than "China is a fucking ass-hole to the planet", then you're smoking some extra cheesy cheeba.

If the US passes regulations that handcuff businesses, and leave them at a competitive disadvantage versus their Chinese counterparts, that drives demand away from US companies and toward the companies that pollute the most. That's probably a net-loss for the planet.

Also, there's nothing affecting climate change more than overpopulation. Gas guzzling SUV's aren't killing the planet per se, it's just that there are too fucking many of them. If we could put 3 or 4 billion people into some kind of rocket and fire them into the sun, then the rest of us could let our cars idle 24/7 and it wouldn't matter a damn bit.

So again, what's the fucking point of implementing measures that reduce the emissions that any individual produces, while at the same time the world is just producing more individuals. That's still a net loss for the planet.

Overpopulation is the villain. That means China, (with it's 1.3 billion people eating, fucking, and shitting), is public enemy number 1.

Going back to your speeding car analogy...

The US and China are on the same planet. So it's like we're both in cars that are speeding toward a wall. We're both gonna crash and die in fiery violent wrecks. Inside the US car, we're looking for loose change to pay a toll booth. Inside the chinese car, they're doing hookers and blow while laughing at the stupid Americans who built a tollbooth on the road to destruction.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm certain that when you're ready and able to hear "the point," you will realize that it's been coming at you from all sides all along. You just don't feel it, so you probably think it's fake, or BS, or some attempt to trick you. It's not. It's just differences of opinion and where the weight is put on various characterizations of the facts.

You have asked the question, and you have been told answers, you just think they're bad answers, so you don't remember them.

Here:
The point (well, a point) is that some people have conservative values and want to keep things the way they are or even make things the way they were.

The fact is that the climate is changing. This will impact the environments of the world and the species those environments can support. Some species will likely go extinct. Coastlines will move, displacing communities. There are other consequences to climate change.

These people who want to conserve the current status quo think that whether or not action is taken to effect change is not a business decision, but a moral one.

The point, to them, is to not leave a trail of destruction behind us, as a species.
(There are other points.)


***
It is always practical and logical for the largest human organizations to ponder the biggest human dilemmas.

[BananaStand]

The point (well, a point) is that some people have conservative values and want to keep things the way they are or even make things the way they were.

That's not what 'conservative' means. The word you're looking for is 'traditional'. 'The way the were' is a really broad and vague phrase. Once upon a time, the spot I'm sitting in right now was covered in over 5000 feet of solid ice. So who decides how far back we go to achieve "the way things were"? How are we determining what point in history had the 'ideal' climate?

The fact is that the climate is changing.

And it has been for kajillions of years. Why is it just a problem now?

This will impact the environments of the world and the species those environments can support. Some species will likely go extinct. Coastlines will move, displacing communities. There are other consequences to climate change.

So what? Saber tooth tigers are extinct. Woolly mammoths are extinct. Brontosauruses are extinct. Coastlines have been moving around forever. The egyptian pyramids weren't always in the desert you know.

My point is that changes in nature can happen with or without man's intervention. That is the natural course of the earth's development. Is it even possible for man to stop those changes? If so, why would he want to?

These people who want to conserve the current status quo think that whether or not action is taken to effect change is not a business decision, but a moral one.

Fine. But that still doesn't answer the question as to why it should also become a function of government. People have moral opinions on all kinds of shit. Those morals only become policy through the exercise of representative government. We had an election and the guy who denies climate change won. It only follows that the government, under his administration, would cease government sponsorship of a minority moral opinion.

If the tree-huggers want their moral opinion to become policy, they need to demonstrate how the US, as only one of nearly 200 nations on earth, can unilaterally affect climate change with it's own domestic policy. Otherwise, you're just choosing to crash your car into the wall at 95mph instead of 100mph. You're still dead. Except in the meantime, you're introducing costly and cumbersome regulations into your economy.

The point, to them, is to not leave a trail of destruction behind us, as a species.
(There are other points.)

Let's be serious for a minute now. The only way that's ever going to happen is if somehow, about 3-4 billion people instantaneously drop dead, and the remaining people cease to expand their population exponentially.

Where's the morality police now?

It is always practical and logical for the largest human organizations to ponder the biggest human dilemmas.

American hubris right there bro. I don't think US counts as one of "the largest human organizations".

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]

All of that just affirms my initial statement.

To wit:

I'm certain that when you're ready and able to hear "the point," you will realize that it's been coming at you from all sides all along. You just don't feel it, so you probably think it's fake, or BS, or some attempt to trick you. It's not. It's just differences of opinion and where the weight is put on various characterizations of the facts.

You asked what the other side's point is and I told you a piece of it.
You're not ready to hear it yet, or you are, and you do, and you continue to pretend you don't.
Whatever.

***
I'll not argue with you. You are not my political adversary.

[BananaStand]

You're not ready to hear it yet, or you are, and you do, and you continue to pretend you don't.

I do hear it. My answer is "So what?"

[CoccoBill]

Waa and boohoo. China is exemplary because they're on track to meet their targets. If Trump ditches the CPP, US emissions will also start rising higher. China and USA combined release more carbon emissions than the next 25 biggest polluters combined, so yes it makes a big difference what the US does. And yeah, for sure China should and could be doing more, but at least they're doing something.

[BananaStand]

China is exemplary because they're on track to meet their targets

So was Enron

[CoccoBill]

BTW re: population growth, that's most likely already slowing down. Current estimates say we'll hit 9 billion by 2050, but we probably won't exceed 10 billion, at least on this planet.

Also,

If we could put 3 or 4 billion people into some kind of rocket and fire them into the sun, then the rest of us could let our cars idle 24/7 and it wouldn't matter a damn bit.

Nah, we'd just get warmer a bit slower. It took millions of years for mother earth to deposit all that juicy fossil fuel into the ground, and it takes us a couple centuries to dig it all up. If we keep doing it, whether it takes us 200 or 300 years total makes no difference. We need to stop doing it.

[BananaStand]

Nah, we'd just get warmer a bit slower. It took millions of years for mother earth to deposit all that juicy fossil fuel into the ground, and it takes us a couple centuries to dig it all up. If we keep doing it, whether it takes us 200 or 300 years total makes no difference. We need to stop doing it.

Does not compute.

Pandoras box is open on fossil fuels. You can't close it. We will never, ever, be in a position where "mother earth" is producing fossil fuel deposits at a rate that's at least as fast as the rate we're using it. Just...never.

It's gonna run out sometime. The sooner that happens, the sooner we'll cease producing carbon emissions through the use of fossil fuels. Isn't that the ultimate victory for the planet?

Wouldn't the greenest, most conservationist, most climate sensitive policy be to promote excessive and wasteful consumption and drive us to the inevitable conclusion as soon as possible?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't believe you hear it. If you heard it, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

You would be asking other questions. Questions about how to adapt what you understand to the bits of truth in the other side's argument. Questions about what you believe with certain weight can be changed to a new weight which balances the information into a more informed position.

[BananaStand]

I don't believe you hear it. If you heard it, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

No, I think it's an apt question.

Extinct species? So what? Unless we're talking about people, chicken, or cows, then who fucking cares.

Altered coastlines? So what? Move!

Erratic weather patterns? Wear a jacket you pansy!

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, I think it's an apt question.

To stand under and understand is all the same
-Shakespeare: "Two Gentlemen of Verona"

If you can't understand the answers, then either A) you're not trying to or B) you're not smart enough to

I've been leaning on A, but the longer it goes on, the more I consider B an option.

Extinct species? So what? Unless we're talking about people, chicken, or cows, then who fucking cares.

I'm hearing you say that you perceive that there are at least some species which are worth caring about.

Is your reason for caring based on anything other than selfish arguments?
(E.g. You like to eat them. Other people like you like to eat them. They are useful to humans, i.e. you.)

Is it really a stretch for you to perceive that other people attach different weight to their selfish thoughts than you do to your selfish thoughts?

Altered coastlines? So what? Move!

Erratic weather patterns? Wear a jacket you pansy!

It's clear how much dignity and respect you see in your perceived political adversaries.

I suspect that's about as much dignity and respect that you will be shown when you engage in these conversations.

[CoccoBill]

My suggestion is troll better. You went from a complete skeptic to "so what" in like 3 posts. Try to be more consistent.

[BananaStand]

My suggestion is troll better. You went from a complete skeptic to "so what" in like 3 posts. Try to be more consistent.

I'm quite sure my position remains unchanged.

I am not at all skeptical that the earth is warming, and do not deny the impacts to species, coastlines, and whatever.

My answer to that is "so what?"

I'm skeptical when it comes to claims that the actions of a single government could reverse those phenomena. My skepticism stems from the fact that temperature changes, melting glaciers, extincting species, and changing coastlines have been occurring since the earth was formed. It seems somewhat dubious that we can reverse all of that if we just made cars that get better gas mileage.