Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 592 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
the cost of reducing CO2 vs. the cost of adapting.

What is the cost of reducing? I mean the real cost, not some artificial monetary cost but real world cost.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Aside from all the the other stuff resulting from global warming, 10% of the worlds population live in coastal zones below 10M above sea level. So what is the cost of adapting?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5546
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.

The number's i've seen previously were somewhere around 80%.  97% seems high.

I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline the_squid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3479
The number's i've seen previously were somewhere around 80%.  97% seems high.



Your feelings on the percentage don’t really matter....   hard numbers are what count.

It seems high because it is high!

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 09:25:33 pm by the_squid »
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Your feelings on the percentage donít really matter....   hard numbers are what count.
Logic fail! What matters is the question asked. No one cares about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or whether the earth is warming or whether they believe that 50% of the observed warming is due to human CO2. The question that matter is how many scientists think that reducing human CO2 emissions rapidly is a useful response. When it comes to that question there is no 97% consensus - it is closer to 80%.

More importantly, 20% of scientists who dissent from the alarmist view is not an insignificant minority. It is certainly large enough to expect that their opinions be heard in the policy debate and people who try to prevent the dissenting opinions from being expressed are anti-science toletarians.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 09:42:21 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
What is the cost of reducing? I mean the real cost, not some artificial monetary cost but real world cost.
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem. The trouble is we cannot wave a magic wand and deploy technology that does not exist and any estimates of future costs are no better than wild guesses. Most people don't take economic forecasts for a year or two as facts so why should anyone take economist predictions for 50 or 100 years from now as facts?

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2732
Your feelings on the percentage donít really matter....   hard numbers are what count.

It seems high because it is high!

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You post a source from NASA and Tim marks it dumb. But he cares about the science. Like really REALLY cares. lol
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
You post a source from NASA and Tim marks it dumb. But he cares about the science. Like really REALLY cares. lol
Posting links to scientific papers *is* dumb if the papers don't address the question being asked. It is called the strawman fallacy.
Like Like x 1 Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4239
The question that matter is how many scientists think that reducing human CO2 emissions rapidly is a useful response. When it comes to that question there is no 97% consensus - it is closer to 80%.

More importantly, 20% of scientists who dissent from the alarmist view is not an insignificant minority. It is certainly large enough to expect that their opinions be heard in the policy debate and people who try to prevent the dissenting opinions from being expressed are anti-science toletarians.
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem.

"the problem" you speak to: is not a problem you accept. As the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to accept that anthropogenic sourced C02 is the principal causal tie to warming/climate change..... as the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to, when challenged, state your understood alternative principal causal tie. Instead, you perpetually draw on your, "adapt only, no mitigation" charade; you perpetually draw on your "denigrating climate scientists" routine that presumes to favour "economists/engineers" to work to deploy problem resolutions in line with policy related decisions - again, all for a problem you don't accept in the first place.

your disingenuous nature is well understood/recognized:
- when pressed to respond to requests for details related to your "adapt only" posturing, you provide nothing other than to suggest adaptation is a localized per country concern... for global impacts that reflect upon borderless oceans/atmosphere - yeesh! Oh wait now; you also dropped a nugget (under the waldo's pressing scrutiny of your BS) that adaptation is a "futures concern" - that nothing needs to be initiated now/today. All of which follows the, "do nothing/delay at all costs", implicit position of deniers/fake skeptics.

- you continually natter on about a broad-based reference to "economists/engineers" overseeing enforcement/deployment of any policy decisions (those that might be under your undetermined/unqualified stated influence of those wascally "climate scientists"... you know, that body of world-wide scientists working in a myriad of disciplines within and peripheral to climate science proper). Of course, when the waldo pressed you to provide (rather recognize) the formal positions of recognized international/national bodies & organizations of economists and engineers, you resorted to one of your ready-goto fallbacks: you said something along the lines of why should you/one recognize the ideological and political positions of biased bodies/organizations... press me on this and I will find your exact quote!

citation request to align with your statement/claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"... you know, a response to a problem you refuse to accept in the first place.  It's also heeelarious to read you attempt to counter the consensus on the prevailing science with this narrowly aligned (claimed) percentage on problem response - heeelarious!  ;D
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 Disagree Disagree x 1 Winner Winner x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8465
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem. The trouble is we cannot wave a magic wand and deploy technology that does not exist and any estimates of future costs are no better than wild guesses. Most people don't take economic forecasts for a year or two as facts so why should anyone take economist predictions for 50 or 100 years from now as facts?

Well at least you seem to be coming around to the fact that most climate scientists agree on AGW and its causes. And you are right that it will take more than just scientists to deal with the problem. However there is no need to jump to the conclusion that it could only be fixed by waving a wand. After all we didn't need a magic wand to create the billion or so automobiles that roam the earth today.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8465
Aside from all the the other stuff resulting from global warming, 10% of the worlds population live in coastal zones below 10M above sea level. So what is the cost of adapting?

It doesn't look good if you live in say Florida if things don't change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/13/antarctic-ice-loss-has-tripled-in-a-decade-if-that-continues-we-are-in-serious-trouble/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f72d97e5352c

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
As the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to accept that anthropogenic sourced C02 is the principal causal tie to warming/climate change.....
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering.  Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot  by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.
Dumb Dumb x 4 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8465
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering.  Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot  by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.

Maybe you should re asses your tired old sources and study the vast majority of peer reviewed ones so you won't continue to rack up so many "dumbs"

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
Your argument is apparently that since human activity didn't cause the end of the ice age, human activity couldn't be causing warming present-day either.

As Michael charitably put it, that's moronic.

It's like arguing that since human activity didn't cause the dinosaurs to go extinct, human activity couldn't be causing species to go extinct present-day either.

Good grief.

I'm not exactly sure where to rank this one on the stupid-scale, but it's somewhere in the same neighborhood as "it's cold today so global warming is obviously fake" and "if humans evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys?"

 -k
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us
Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8465
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.

We are being advised by scientists to adjust how we derive energy from our environment so we don't continue to destroy it. Economically it's probably a good idea to adjust away from fossil fuels lest we stqnd around shivering when we burn the last bbl of oil. And yes, certain things are out of our control. i.e. an asteroid hit the earth ~65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs and it seems the deniers have an attitude that uses that sort of incident to keepo their heads buried.