Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 15661 - 15680 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WBraun

climber

Dec 11, 2014 - 07:51pm PT

Why can't you drink Bruce?

Are you really an ass.

Lets you and me and Chief get drunk some time.

We'll all be laughin our asses off ......

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Dec 11, 2014 - 08:01pm PT

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/12/11/if-all-you-see-1340/

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2014 - 08:01pm PT

What happened, this thread just lost 2,000 posts!

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Dec 11, 2014 - 08:47pm PT

Your lack of willingness to sacrifice is unique to you and several billion others on the planet DMT.

The shetheads preaching the gospel on this site aren't willing to sacrifice either. They somehow think the "other guys" can taking the screwing with the savings being passed onto them.

dave729

Trad climber

Western America

Dec 11, 2014 - 08:53pm PT

Greenpeace nazi's defile Nazca Humming Bird Geoglyph.
On the list of things 'not' to do while at the COP20
climate conference in Lima Peru, this is #1.

Government would seek to prevent those responsible from leaving the country and ask prosecutors to file charges of "attacking archaeological monuments" - a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.'

http://time.com/3627655/peru-greenpeace-nazca-crime/

http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/12/10/6611468/greenpeace-apologizes-for-peru.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/12/10/greenpeace_sorry_for_stunt_that_damaged_perus_nazca_lines.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4293975.ece

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/greenpeace-is-facing-criminal-charges-for-damaging-the-nazca

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/546281/Greenpeace-Nazca-lines-Peru-apologise-publicity-stunt

http://rt.com/news/213083-peru-greenpeace-nazca-damage/

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/peru-moves-sue-greenpeace-nazca-banner/

http://www.realclearscience.com/2014/12/11/greenpeace_defiles_peru039s_nazca_lines_262356.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11372464

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greenpeace-nazca-lines-damage-environmental-group-sorry-careless-crass-stunt-1479087

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 11, 2014 - 10:31pm PT

what to do probably has little to do with the science, and everything to do with our selfish interests...

Example 1.3 (Pollution game)
This game is the extension of Prisoner’s Dilemma to the case of many players. The issues modeled by this game arise in many contexts, here we will discuss it in the context of pollution control. Assume that there are n countries in this game. For a simple model of this situation, assume each country faces the choice of either passing legislation to control pollution or not. Assume that pollution control has a cost of 3 for the country, but each country that pollutes adds 1 to the cost of all countries (in terms of added health costs, etc). The cost of controlling pollution (which is 3) is considerably larger than the cost of 1 a country pays for being socially irresponsible.

Suppose that k countries choose not to control pollution. Clearly the cost incurred by each of these countries is k. On the other hand, the cost incurred by the remaining n-k countries is k+3 each, since they have to pay the added cost for their own pollution control. The only stable solution is the one in which no country controls pollution, having a cost of n for each country. In contrast, if they had all controlled pollution, the cost would have been only 3 for each country.

From Algorithmic Game Theory, N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, E. Tardos and V.V. Vazirani eds.

This is the argument that DMT, The Chief, rick and others have used, that is, if we do it but not everyone else doesn't, then we're fools. That's what the game theory predicts we'd say... even if we know that the differed costs will be much higher than the cost to control the pollution in the first place...

I'll emphasize that: even if we are 100% sure that the science tells us this is going to be a problem, we'd still choose not to do anything.

So it has little to do with how certain the science is (which is very certain) and everything to do with how we perceive the economic game we're playing (this can be generalized from individuals to countries).

The policy challenge is to alter the game so that it is in the interest of all countries to control pollution (in the climate change discussion this has to do with controlling CO2 emissions into the atmosphere).

I don't suspect that this argument will fare any better this time around, but I just wanted y'all to know your acting exactly as predicted, and it doesn't have anything to do with how good the science is, you'd act the same way even if it were shown to be 100% correct.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2014 - 11:33pm PT

Thanks Ed, insightful.

Degaine

climber

Dec 12, 2014 - 02:07am PT

Bruce, give it a rest with DMT, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree, and unlike the trolls in this thread, he's been honest, engaged in the discussion, and quite frankly realistic about what can be done.

I can't speak (or write) for him, but from how his posts read I don't see any AGW denial, just an honest, realistic point of view from an individual level about what can/can't be done.

In my case I'm trying to work within the confines of the current system, and adjusting my lifestyle to what I can do on an individual level without putting my livelihood and my family at risk: bike to work (and the crag), have one car that gets 45 to 50 mpg, buy locally grown food, etc. But quite honestly you can't ask individuals to completely go against the grain - it has to be a group effort (city/county/state/country/etc.) at some point and you seem to barely hint at that, choosing to castigate on a person by person basis.

Cheers.

Degaine

climber

Dec 12, 2014 - 02:23am PT

The Chief wrote:

Not at all. But in this case as far as this CAGW bullshet, yes!

I agree that the sky is not falling. However, the science to date is more than convincing enough to conclude that the current rate of climate change/global warming is primarily human caused. Please don't take what I am about to write as a judgment about you as a person or your intelligence, but over the course of the 30,000 posts in this thread you've failed to demonstrate even a layman's understanding of climate science and your counterarguments to current climate science are just not convincing.

The Chief wrote:

But cease that ongoing story telling of why we must change the way we do business as far as FF's.

Why? There are good reasons beyond climate change as to why we should transition to energy sources other than fossil fuels and there are good reasons as to why we should use this limited resource as efficiently as possible. Pollution and scarcity are just two good reasons.

The Chief wrote:

It's well established that the "People" globally are not buying into the CAGW Mania. 66.8% or greater of the worlds population could give a fly fk about CAGW or CC. Fact.

Buying into it and considering it a priority are two different things. If you asked me if putting food on the table for my kids is a higher priority than global warming, I would of course say yes. That doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing about global warming.

The Chief wrote:

Only a handful of freakiods as exemplified on this thread are crying death and doom due to the possibility that CAGW could exist yet under their breaths continue living their lives like there's no tomorrow as far as doing their parts in consuming FF's and emitting all that C02.

First, why are you bothered by the notion of crying doom? It's your MO on the ISIS or other geopolitical threads.

Second, as per my first question, it is impossible to live in modern Western society without having some relationship with fossil fuels - from plastics to food transport - even if an individual has gone so far as to use only solar power for their home and stop using a car entirely.

I personally think that we need to address global warming, and to a larger extent our overall impact on the planet when it comes to the use of resources and pollution. But again, I don't see it as all or nothing. I haven't stopped using fossil fuels, but as I stated earlier, I'm doing what I can to reduce use, and my consumption habits clearly demonstrate that I'm not living my life like there's no tomorrow.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 08:23am PT

By the very fact we are having this endless discussion, 'we' are not 100% sure. Its reality, buddy.

I must disagree. We are not having this discussion because of what the science does, or does not, say. We are having this discussion because of what the people think, the masses of non-scientists.

To ask the masses what they think about the science is about as smart as asking the masses to trouble-shoot why the Challenger crashed--simply, they don't have the smarts to do that work.

The science is in, and we're in trouble. You can wait until there is 100% "proof," but how would that differ from the proof that we now have?

You say: I like getting paid so that I can pay my creditors and take care of my family.

But the truth is, taking care of your family includes tending to their long-range health.

What would you do if your daughter was feeling bad, and you went to see 50 doctors about it. 48 of them said that it was the early stages of a deadly and aggressive cancer and that you'd better start treatment right away. But 2 said that it was just a cold and that all she needed was rest.

Would you put her to bed and watch and wait until the other 2 doctors also said it was cancer? You know you wouldn't.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 08:34am PT

To even suggest that anyone should NOT nor EVER question the science when it enters the arena of general policy making that will affect everyone's daily lives, is indeed the downfall of your position.

Straw man argument.

Plenty of folks HAVE questioned the science. And have found it to be sound.

Edit

To add, what enters the arena of general policy making, and how that affects everyone's daily lives, has zero to do with the science. Nor does it have to do with what will benefit the lives of the masses. Take a look at last-nights vote for a very solid example (I'm talking about the huge give-away to the banks, which is not in the interest of the masses).

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Dec 12, 2014 - 08:36am PT

Yes I understand what you are saying. The old Al Gore Live in a Mansion routine is stupid.
That's not what I was implying nor what I said.

Sorry Dingus, I was unclear. I know that you were not taking this position, but saw that it was being thrown against you.

Example 1.3 (Pollution game)
This game is the extension of Prisoner’s Dilemma to the case of many players.

The Pollution Game Ed describes, like the Commons Dilemma I mentioned earlier, both refer to k-player generalizations of the iron trap modeled by Prisoner's Dilemma. Which in very simple logic shows why individual solutions to common-resource problems (like pollution of water and air, or catching too many fish) do not work.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 08:47am PT

Bullshet.

The Chief, are you claiming that the science has not been examined?

It's statements like this from you that give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 08:55am PT

My agenda, The Chief, is to try to convince people that we must begin treating the Earth as the living system it is.

Of course we don't have to. But there are consequences to that approach, and our highly-trained scientists are telling us in clear words what those consequences are.

There is the notion of "living within your means." There is also the notion of paying for what you use. Our current society is dramatically failing on both of these items.

So, what's your agenda?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 08:59am PT

The Chief, are you claiming that the science has not been examined?

Where did I ever state that Kman... where?

The Chief, right here:

Straw man argument.

Plenty of folks HAVE questioned the science.

Straw man argument.

Bullshet.

Clearly, you don't even know what you're responding to.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 09:01am PT

Come out of that little Santa Cruz bubble of yours ...

The irony is astounding.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Dec 12, 2014 - 09:04am PT

While your emmisaries of doom are whooping it up in Lima and in their spare time plotting of wealth redistribution through the U.N., or
whatever is left after the criminal middlemen there steal their share, the one bright spot in the global economics, FF producing nations, are engaged in a 1980's scale price war. War by economic proxy.Just as in the 80's there is intent of economic destruction for Russia, and this time bonus damage to the funding of terrorist governments in the middle east.

The question to you weather wackadoodles should be: Will this price war lead to global recession and less usage of the vast stores of energy dense FF's, or will the plummeting prices lead to a boom and ultimately far more FF consumption, or could it lead to a real hot war?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 09:14am PT

The science will never cease to be examined nor should it ever be.

What the heck are you talking about?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 12, 2014 - 09:17am PT

While your emmisaries of doom are whooping it up in Lima and in their spare time plotting of wealth redistribution through the U.N., ...

I have news for you rick. The bankers don't need to go to Lima to solidify the redistribution of wealth. Just check last-night's vote for an example.

Are you aware of how much wealth has be redistributed into the hands of the very few? But that whole thing is a different subject...