Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 6550 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #900 on: December 05, 2019, 01:54:52 pm »
The scientists literally said we are “courting disaster” and looking at “global systems collapse.”

You called this language extremist and exaggerated.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #901 on: December 05, 2019, 03:01:26 pm »
The scientists literally said we are “courting disaster” and looking at “global systems collapse.”

You called this language extremist and exaggerated.

Language is difficult.

To say "we are at major risk" or "we are courting disaster" is a very different thing from saying "we are doomed" or even "we are in deep trouble".

And it matters.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #902 on: December 05, 2019, 08:44:31 pm »
Michael....bruh

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #903 on: December 05, 2019, 09:06:47 pm »
Funny Funny x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #904 on: December 06, 2019, 07:51:46 am »
I don't need to. You keep punching yourself in the face.  :D

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #905 on: December 06, 2019, 08:25:02 am »
Quote
To say "we are at major risk" or "we are courting disaster" is a very different thing from saying "we are doomed" or even "we are in deep trouble".

The former pair of phrases have probability included in the meanings, the latter do not.  We are AT RISK, we are COURTING... vs. we ARE.

If you can't understand the difference, then you are proof of the problem.

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #906 on: December 06, 2019, 09:51:38 pm »
If a doctor told you that your behaviours were courting death, you would stop your behaviour.

Probability here is irrelevant.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #907 on: December 06, 2019, 11:28:36 pm »
If a doctor told you that your behaviours were courting death, you would stop your behaviour.

Probability here is irrelevant.

It sounds like he just wouldn't Believe the doctor....
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #908 on: December 07, 2019, 07:33:53 am »
If a doctor told you that your behaviours were courting death, you would stop your behaviour.

Probability here is irrelevant.

It's actually the entire point.

There is a huge space between "we are at major risk" and "we are doomed"

As the article points out, saying the latter when it's not true could have major detrimental effects, beyond just being untrue.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline bcsapper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #909 on: December 07, 2019, 09:49:01 am »
If a doctor told you that your behaviours were courting death, you would stop your behaviour.

Probability here is irrelevant.

I think there are lots of people who have been given doctor's orders and refused to follow them.  Stop smoking, stop eating crap, get more exercise, etc.  The problem is always that the consequences are long term.  And somewhat vague.  Not all smokers die of lung cancer.

It's the same with climate change.  Vague consequences (to the individual), down the road a bit.

The main difference is in the likelyhood of action.  At least an individual might quit smoking. 
Time for bed said Zebedee...
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #910 on: December 09, 2019, 08:03:48 am »
In health and safety there's an approach that says you need to consider both the likelihood of a hazard occurring as well as the gravity of the hazard. So you end up with a contingency table that looks like this:
Likely to occur
Low consequences
Unlikely to occur
Low consequences
Likely to occur
High consequences

Unlikely to occur
High consequences
*Bold requires intervention

The only time preventive action is not necessitated is when something is BOTH unlikely to occur and has low consequences.


One of the moments you intervene is if something has low consequences, but is likely to happen over and over again. Say there's a corner on a desk that's sticking out and people constantly stub their toes on it. It's low consequences (nobody's going to die here), but it's a hazard that is repeatedly encountered and needs to be addressed.

Obviously, if something is likely to occur and has high consequences you absolutely need to intervene. This is where we are with anthropogenic climate change, but those who don't "believe" what scientific observation has shown will argue differently.

If something has dire consequences, but is unlikely to occur, you still need to intervene because of the gravity of the consequences should that thing occur. In this case, we are talking about global catastrophy. That is not exaggeration. Scientists are fairly certain that the interaction of climate systems means that the collapse of even one or two of them, could create a cascading effect amongst the rest of them. Even if you don't believe climate catastrophy to be likely, if there is ANY chance then the consequences are dire enough that they require action.

So the only time non-intervention even makes sense is if you buy into the argument that climate change is NOT happening. That's demonstrably wrong based on all of the evidence that has been analyzed by the scientific community.

Offline bcsapper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #911 on: December 09, 2019, 08:10:59 am »
In health and safety there's an approach that says you need to consider both the likelihood of a hazard occurring as well as the gravity of the hazard. So you end up with a contingency table that looks like this:
Likely to occur
Low consequences
Unlikely to occur
Low consequences
Likely to occur
High consequences

Unlikely to occur
High consequences
*Bold requires intervention

The only time preventive action is not necessitated is when something is BOTH unlikely to occur and has low consequences.


One of the moments you intervene is if something has low consequences, but is likely to happen over and over again. Say there's a corner on a desk that's sticking out and people constantly stub their toes on it. It's low consequences (nobody's going to die here), but it's a hazard that is repeatedly encountered and needs to be addressed.

Obviously, if something is likely to occur and has high consequences you absolutely need to intervene. This is where we are with anthropogenic climate change, but those who don't "believe" what scientific observation has shown will argue differently.

If something has dire consequences, but is unlikely to occur, you still need to intervene because of the gravity of the consequences should that thing occur. In this case, we are talking about global catastrophy. That is not exaggeration. Scientists are fairly certain that the interaction of climate systems means that the collapse of even one or two of them, could create a cascading effect amongst the rest of them. Even if you don't believe climate catastrophy to be likely, if there is ANY chance then the consequences are dire enough that they require action.

So the only time non-intervention even makes sense is if you buy into the argument that climate change is NOT happening. That's demonstrably wrong based on all of the evidence that has been analyzed by the scientific community.

There's no doubt climate change is happening. 

If the desk was steel, and bolted to the floor, and growing year by year, the people stubbing their toe on it would still rather walk around it than get rid of it if some of them had to be laid off to pay for it.
Time for bed said Zebedee...

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #912 on: December 09, 2019, 08:16:18 am »
How many people are going to be laid off when the desk eventually takes up the entire office and nobody has working space anymore? How many people are going to care about working there when they're no longer stubbing their toe but trying to avoid the razor blades that were added to the edge of this growing desk?

The environment that supports all life on this planet is a hell of a lot more important than temporary occupational displacement. Maybe I'm desensitized to it, since I grew up in Windsor, ON where the auto industry has gone through these kinds of "restructuring" every year since the 70s. But I don't think so. I think people need to realize that there will be economic consequences to inaction as well. It's not like you're saving your job by doing nothing.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #913 on: December 09, 2019, 08:22:46 am »
In health and safety there's an approach that says you need to consider both the likelihood of a hazard occurring as well as the gravity of the hazard. So you end up with a contingency table that looks like this:
Likely to occur
Low consequences
Unlikely to occur
Low consequences
Likely to occur
High consequences

Unlikely to occur
High consequences
*Bold requires intervention

The only time preventive action is not necessitated is when something is BOTH unlikely to occur and has low consequences.

Yes, I understand that framework.

Quote
One of the moments you intervene is if something has low consequences, but is likely to happen over and over again. Say there's a corner on a desk that's sticking out and people constantly stub their toes on it. It's low consequences (nobody's going to die here), but it's a hazard that is repeatedly encountered and needs to be addressed.

Obviously, if something is likely to occur and has high consequences you absolutely need to intervene. This is where we are with anthropogenic climate change, but those who don't "believe" what scientific observation has shown will argue differently.

I agree.

Quote
If something has dire consequences, but is unlikely to occur, you still need to intervene because of the gravity of the consequences should that thing occur. In this case, we are talking about global catastrophy.

Yes, absolutely you need to intervene.

Quote
if there is ANY chance then the consequences are dire enough that they require action.

Yes action is required.

Quote
So the only time non-intervention even makes sense is if you buy into the argument that climate change is NOT happening. That's demonstrably wrong based on all of the evidence that has been analyzed by the scientific community.

100% agree that action is required.

Offline bcsapper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #914 on: December 09, 2019, 08:23:45 am »
How many people are going to be laid off when the desk eventually takes up the entire office and nobody has working space anymore? How many people are going to care about working there when they're no longer stubbing their toe but trying to avoid the razor blades that were added to the edge of this growing desk?

The environment that supports all life on this planet is a hell of a lot more important than temporary occupational displacement. Maybe I'm desensitized to it, since I grew up in Windsor, ON where the auto industry has gone through these kinds of "restructuring" every year since the 70s. But I don't think so. I think people need to realize that there will be economic consequences to inaction as well. It's not like you're saving your job by doing nothing.

Absolutely.  I'm not arguing for what will happen.  I'm just arguing what will happen.  If it was up to me, I'd have tossed the desk already. 

But then, I quit smoking twenty years ago.
Time for bed said Zebedee...