The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[sylas]

This.

Nothing to do with climate; this is a general point I've been reflecting upon recently -- a lot!

I was unemployed for a long time. Qualify that; I had various ways of making a bit of money, but my bills always exceeded my income; incomes from casual tutoring, a bit of programing, other bit work. What turned me around was facing up to my circumstances, accepting public funded assistance (unemployment benefits) and getting qualified for a new career with a six month basic course to become a nursing aid in aged care. Now I'm off unemployment benefits, earning a real income, and being able to save money at last. I can repair my car when it needs it; I can pay my power bills without borrowing, and I get all the groceries I need whenever I need them.

It was an education for me being without a livable income, and moving into earning a livable income again; albeit still technically "low income". Be that as it may, I am enthusiastically looking forward to paying taxes again, and supporting the systems that were there to help me when I needed it. I'm also able to take up my own charitable giving again; but my own experience suggests a formal government funded safety net is much better than private charities. I'm looking forward to contributing positively once more with my taxes. Governments are not ideal and not always efficient with their use of funds, but by golly it's a good thing that we can have a collective means of working together to address and actually do something about issues that are too big for individuals.

Cheers -- sylas

[Zymologist]

It seems to me that the case for 'global warming' runs something like this:

1. The global average temperature is steadily increasing

2. Human activity (fossil fuels, aerosols, etc) is responsible for a significant proportion of the increase

3. The increase will result in changes to global weather patterns that will have numerous adverse effects on people in the not very distant future

4. Therefore people should take action to reduce human effects on global temperature increases (use 'green energy', burn less fossil fuels etc)



Often it looks like (in the popular media) we leap from (1) to (4). Yet that doesn't make the case, as (1), (2) and (3) all need supporting.

I think (1) is semi-proven, but are we experiencing a permanent shift or an oscillation?

(2) seems to me to be questionable. How significant is human activity compared to fluctuations in Sun activity? If we only contribute a very small amount of the input, then perhaps our resources would be better spent preparing for climate changes rather than trying to influence something beyond our control.

(3) Seems debatable also. If we are going to make very significant investments in green energy etc to avoid climate change we need to know that these are gong to be better uses of money than other possible uses. If any significant change is several generations away then we might be wiser to spread resources over a number of areas (food production and sustainability, more efficient use of all resources, health care and disease prevention, housing, research, etc etc).

This is much the same thing that I tried to say earlier on, only way better said.

[Zymologist]

Oops, sorry, I forgot where I was posting. Back into TWeb mode:

Global warming is a lie and a scam, foisted on an innocent public by a bunch of llama-wool sweater wearing left-wing tree-huggers in cahoots with unscrupulous scientists hungry for grant money! It's my right as an American to drive the half-mile to the Walmart, by myself, in my V16 gasoline pickup because I'm too lazy to walk. Anyone who says that perhaps I could find a less environmentally costly way of getting my made-in-China stretch onesies is just un-American!



{I don't know if there's a smilie for ranting and foaming at the mouth...?}

You have a V-16 pickup? Where can I get one!?

[Cow Poke]

Tax is just a way that societies handle problems that are too big for the individual.

Yes, and governments can always find a way to...
A) Identify a problem
2) Exaggerate it beyond ANY capability of individuals to solve it
C) Come up with TAXATION in an feigned ATTEMPT to solve it
D) Never EVER solve the problem, just keep needing more money

And they can ALWAYS find suckers who help them advance their cause

Climate Change is just "Global Warming" rebranded because it didn't sell so well as "Global Warming", so they're managing to dupe a bunch of weak minded supporters to say dumb stuff like "love TAXES!"

No, it's the way to show you're a freakin moron who got duped into believing that the government can spend money more efficiently than person who EARNED it.

But, you can ALWAYS give VOLUNTARILY to the government above and beyond what your "fair share" is!

[Cow Poke]

This.

Nothing to do with climate; this is a general point I've been reflecting upon recently -- a lot!

I was unemployed for a long time. Qualify that; I had various ways of making a bit of money, but my bills always exceeded my income; incomes from casual tutoring, a bit of programing, other bit work. What turned me around was facing up to my circumstances, accepting public funded assistance (unemployment benefits) and getting qualified for a new career with a six month basic course to become a nursing aid in aged care. Now I'm off unemployment benefits, earning a real income, and being able to save money at last. I can repair my car when it needs it; I can pay my power bills without borrowing, and I get all the groceries I need whenever I need them.

Congrats, Sylas -- I hope you get advancement and promotions!

It was an education for me being without a livable income, and moving into earning a livable income again; albeit still technically "low income". Be that as it may, I am enthusiastically looking forward to paying taxes again, and supporting the systems that were there to help me when I needed it.

I don't mind paying the taxes I actually owe, and I will take every legal deduction available to me. ON TOP of that, I give to local causes, my church, and I invest quite a bit of time working with the unemployed, teaching stuff like how to write a resume, how to interview, etc.

I'm also able to take up my own charitable giving again; but my own experience suggests a formal government funded safety net is much better than private charities.

Look at government "jobs programs" as opposed to privately funded ones. It would be WAY CHEAPER for the government just to mail checks to everybody than to have the HORRIBLE inefficiencies they have in "jobs programs".

I'm looking forward to contributing positively once more with my taxes. Governments are not ideal and not always efficient with their use of funds,

Do you know how much has been spent on "the war on poverty" since its inception? Even a GUESS?

but by golly it's a good thing that we can have a collective means of working together to address and actually do something about issues that are too big for individuals.

Cheers -- sylas

There's a WORLD of difference between helping people with living assistance (food, shelter, clothing) and collecting taxes to spend on another "war" on a something like "climate change".

WHAT, exactly, should this money be spent on? How much is enough? To whom do we write the check?

[Teallaura]

Oops, sorry, I forgot where I was posting. Back into TWeb mode:

Global warming is a lie and a scam, foisted on an innocent public by a bunch of llama-wool sweater wearing left-wing tree-huggers in cahoots with unscrupulous scientists hungry for grant money! It's my right as an American to drive the half-mile to the Walmart, by myself, in my V16 gasoline pickup because I'm too lazy to walk. Anyone who says that perhaps I could find a less environmentally costly way of getting my made-in-China stretch onesies is just un-American!



{I don't know if there's a smilie for ranting and foaming at the mouth...?}

: rant:

[Cow Poke]

Rant = ( : rant : ) and one of my favorites - mob ( : mob : )

: rant:

Welcome to the party

[Teallaura]

Welcome to the party

You're just jealous of my efficiency...

[Cow Poke]

You're just jealous of my efficiency...

You're right.

[firstfloor]

It seems to me that the case for 'global warming' runs something like this:
1. The global average temperature is steadily increasing
2. Human activity (fossil fuels, aerosols, etc) is responsible for a significant proportion of the increase
3. The increase will result in changes to global weather patterns that will have numerous adverse effects on people in the not very distant future
4. Therefore people should take action to reduce human effects on global temperature increases (use 'green energy', burn less fossil fuels etc)

Often it looks like (in the popular media) we leap from (1) to (4). Yet that doesn't make the case, as (1), (2) and (3) all need supporting.
I think (1) is semi-proven, but are we experiencing a permanent shift or an oscillation?
(2) seems to me to be questionable. How significant is human activity compared to fluctuations in Sun activity? If we only contribute a very small amount of the input, then perhaps our resources would be better spent preparing for climate changes rather than trying to influence something beyond our control.
(3) Seems debatable also. If we are going to make very significant investments in green energy etc to avoid climate change we need to know that these are gong to be better uses of money than other possible uses. If any significant change is several generations away then we might be wiser to spread resources over a number of areas (food production and sustainability, more efficient use of all resources, health care and disease prevention, housing, research, etc etc).

Global warming / climate change is a very complex issue. It is not just about average temperatures. It goes to frequency of violent storms, rising sea level and flooding, drought and food supplies from land and ocean, movement or shrinkage of currently habitable areas on the earth, the human migration that goes with it and all sorts of other things. Part of the problem is that the effects are very difficult to predict and we do not know if we will be able to adapt fast enough. Also, the earth is slow to respond to our interventions so it is very important to act as early as possible. The scientific consensus is unequivocal about the changes happening and that very much of it is due to the habits of human beings.

[Cow Poke]

Global warming / climate change is a very complex issue.

Yes, FAR beyond the ability of the average internet troll to grasp.

It is not just about average temperatures. It goes to frequency of violent storms, rising sea level and flooding, drought and food supplies from land and ocean, movement or shrinkage of currently habitable areas on the earth, the human migration that goes with it and all sorts of other things. Part of the problem is that the effects are very difficult to predict and we do not know if we will be able to adapt fast enough. Also, the earth is slow to respond to our interventions so it is very important to act as early as possible.

According to SOME of your scientists, we should ALREADY be dead. And, I guess you've forgotten about Al Gore's "hockey stick"? Fearmongering at its worst.

The scientific consensus is unequivocal about the changes happening and that very much of it is due to the habits of human beings.

That's a steaming pile of horsie poo.

[firstfloor]

Yes, FAR beyond the ability of the average internet troll to grasp.

[Cow Poke]

Well, yeah, but the difference between us is that *I* know I am... you're duped into thinking you actually understand that stuff.

This:
is the kind of goofy nonsense that shows you can't be taken seriously.

[firstfloor]

Well, yeah, but the difference between us is that *I* know I am... you're duped into thinking you actually understand that stuff.

I do take an interest and really it is not as difficult as you seem to think. When it comes to science, who do you trust; the Politician and his oilman sponsor or the earth scientist? If you want to know more, here is a reasonable place to start:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

[seanD]

I do take an interest and really it is not as difficult as you seem to think. When it comes to science, who do you trust; the Politician and his oilman sponsor or the earth scientist?

Neither. Both are getting paid for a specific agenda one way or another. Scientists are no more on any type of moral high ground in this regard than anyone else.