The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Teallaura]

It does matter, and the attitude itself matters. Again, any human that stops exacerbating the problem has met conditions for satisfaction as stated, even if ultimately insufficient. Swim down, get the others to do the same, and see what happens. I already addressed sufficient, and significant is the same thing here.

The US does address environmental issues - painfully so for many industries. But if China is only gonna ramp up production to compensate for the US driving up its costs without the US' controls it quickly becomes counter-productive.

[Carrikature]

She does. I don't.

You never go to a doctor? That's what I was meaning.

And I'm not going to buy everything they say just because they're a doctor.

Nor should you, but benefit of the doubt is warranted.

Some lawyers are good, others not so much. Telling jokes, though, doesn't make them any more or less untrustworthy.

No, telling jokes doesn't change their trustworthiness. What it does do is affect general opinion, and it increases the attitude that the general public has any footing on which to stand in judgment.

I'll be glad to listen to what they say, but I think it's healthy to be skeptical, especially when somebody wants to tax the world and spend zillions of dollars without even knowing what the cost/benefit analysis looks like.

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I would never advocate against skeptical with the caveat that there are health and unhealthy levels.

The sky is not falling, C, and I'm not interested in spending zillions of dollars to hold it up.

I don't recall saying that it is or that we should.

[Cow Poke]

You never go to a doctor? That's what I was meaning.

Haven't been to a doctor in ages. If I'm sick enough, I go to one of the clinics in HEB or something -- and it's "fee for services". They don't advocate spending zillions of dollars on health care in general.

Nor should you, but benefit of the doubt is warranted.

I doubt the benefits.

No, telling jokes doesn't change their trustworthiness. What it does do is affect general opinion, and it increases the attitude that the general public has any footing on which to stand in judgment.

Meh

Hyperbole notwithstanding, I would never advocate against skeptical with the caveat that there are health and unhealthy levels.

If the US actually was WINNING the war on poverty or the war on drugs, C, the need for the "war" (warbucks) ceases. Do you have any reason to believe that the government's war on global whatever is going to be any different? Seriously -- what would an effective government action look like in the war on climate/weather/warming?

I don't recall saying that it is or that we should.

The movies, the hype, the AlGorisms... you don't think they portray a "sky is falling" mentality? And they use "science" to justify it.

So, do we have a global problem, C? And, if so, what should our government do about it?

[Sparko]

well obviously we invade Canada when it turns tropical. And I call dibs on Greenland!

[Cow Poke]

The more I think about it, C, the less "fitting" your analogies seem to be.

If/when I see a doctor, it is for a specific purpose, and it's fee for services (considering, of course, whatever insurance coverage is involved). And if I don't like what the doctor says, I can go see another doctor. Or, I can just ignore what he says. (at my own peril, of course)

Same with a lawyer. I contract with a lawyer for a specific solution -- a will, sale of property, power of attorney, etc. Fee for services. I'm free to use a lawyer or not. And I can choose the one(s) I want to employ.

How many people actually hire a scientist? And what specific problem are they solving? I know the cost of using a doctor or a clinic, and I know up front the cost of using a lawyer.

I really don't see "doctors and lawyers" as a legitimate parallel.

[Darth Executor]

Aren't you the one who made the doctor analogy?

[Truthseeker]

It's worth noting that 'adapting to it' involves relocating millions of people or, at the very least, rebuilding their homes and infrastructure to accommodate new water levels.

Is that not the best we can do if major climate shifts occur . . . wait, are you thinking that we can stop climate change, or at least moderate it?

[Darth Xena]

The Jerk seems to like well-poisoning. When I asked him for specific examples from White's published works that were laughably wrong to demonstrate that he doesn't have the education that he claims to have, I got nothing other than a rant against non-accredited schooling, without ever addressing his reasons for doing so and the fact that he has never tried to claim otherwise.

I see this quite similarly. You don't like what someone says you don't deal specifically with what they are saying you just do the genetic fallacy, red herring, well poisoning all rolled up into a nasty (i.e. foul) sandwich.

Wait, that is what he did with the story of the professor attacking the pro-life student too.

Seems to be a pattern.

[Cow Poke]

Aren't you the one who made the doctor analogy?

Well, kinda, yes, but here's what I said...

This is the kind of statement that makes me skeptical -- it's like "trust me, I'm a doctor".

Then C came up with...

Yes, doctors are fallible. When I'm sick enough, I still go to one. So do you and your wife. I'm not going to just wring my hands and declare how we can't trust them. When I need a lawyer, I go to one.

[Truthseeker]

The US does address environmental issues - painfully so for many industries. But if China is only gonna ramp up production to compensate for the US driving up its costs without the US' controls it quickly becomes counter-productive.

No, tht's not so from what I read. The Chinese government is pushing for more nuclear power, more use of natural gas, less use of coal, more alternative sources of power, etc.

[Truthseeker]

Even if we reduce human effects on the climate to oh, say 0.1%, what reason do we have that therefore status quo?

[Pinoy]

Even if we reduce human effects on the climate to oh, say 0.1%, what reason do we have that therefore status quo?

The objective of the Global warming advocates is vague (as for me), do they want status quo or back to the time when forest is all around us and we live it huts?

Those who advocate global warming ( change ), should show (by example) what the uneducated (sarcasm on) people like me what to do. How can you trust someone who do not do what he is proposing to do.

Anyway, back to the OP is the publish report wrong?

[Paprika]

No, tht's not so from what I read. The Chinese government is pushing for more nuclear power, more use of natural gas, less use of coal, more alternative sources of power, etc.

That should be more because they want to reduce air pollution from coal that results in haze, smog, etc than any concern over AGW.

[Cow Poke]

That should be more because they want to reduce air pollution from coal that results in haze, smog, etc than any concern over AGW.

Yeah!

[Teallaura]

No, tht's not so from what I read. The Chinese government is pushing for more nuclear power, more use of natural gas, less use of coal, more alternative sources of power, etc.

They are beginning to explore other resources, that's true - but do you really think they can withstand an economic downturn caused by regulation? And while they are taking baby steps in the right direction, that's largely due to outside pressure (the Olympics highlighted something they really didn't want highlighted) which cannot be sustained in the long term. Might they see the wisdom of better regulation? Sure - but they literally cannot risk a return to the Cold War Era economy so when push and shove meet, the environment won't be on the table.

And their baby steps aren't making much of an overall impact...