Lock Up Climate Deniers?

[Carrikature]

I concede your point as I understand it; however; what changes do you "see" in climate that have no relevance to local weather? And if the changes you "see" in climate have had no observable effect on local weather over a period of nearly a century in any given locale, why the campaign to impoverish the USA by reducing carbon fuel consumption to levels that will bankrupt the nation and countless families and businesses therein?

I think you still misunderstand my full point, though we're closer. Climate does have an impact on local weather. However, local weather events are complex. There are so many factors in play, and the impact of each factor varies greatly, that we can't point to a single event as proof for or against a broader claim. Both sides of the climate discussion make this mistake. Moreover, the complexity of local weather also means that effects by a given factor are going to be much different depending on geographical location. Climate changes may mean your location gets more snow than usual while my location gets less. That's due to the fact that climate changes impact air currents (as sylas illustrated in another thread), among other things. The loop is 'loopier' (to use his phrasing), so California may end up hotter earlier while the Midwest gets more snow than ever. By the same token, certain geographical locations may not really notice a shift. Continental weather patterns are different than coastal regions, and something that has a major impact one place may be unnoticed in another. On top of that, region-specific ramifications of climate change are still being investigated. We can identify some global trends (such as rising sea levels).

Suffice to say that 60-80 years of experience in a location isn't enough to discount anything. For it to count, we'd have to grant all of the following: 1) accurate memory of each year (including those years below the age of 20 where you're not really paying attention anyway, and 20 is a generously low number for that); 2) ability to compare each year to the last including the ability to establish trends (and not just "it was colder this year than last year", but actual values; 3) knowledge of location-specific ramifications of climate change; 4) knowledge of all factors which would mitigate those ramifications on a year to year basis; 5) knowledge of which factors are in play each year and their particular outcomes. We specifically don't have #3. We have knowledge of #4. I think we can get pretty close to #5, though it depends. #1 and #2 are far from given. After all, we're not talking about data recorded by scientists but your (and seer's) experience. Just for grins, let's assume we can get #1 and #2 from recorded data. Without #3, you still can't prove or disprove climate changes based on location-specific weather.



Now, for the final question about "impoverishing the USA by reducing carbon fuel consumption to levels that will bankrupt the nation and countless families and businesses therein?" There's a lot to unpack here. In the first place, I'm not in favor of cap and trade, or carbon credits, or anything else to that effect. However, cap and trade and its ilk are held up as the evil agenda even though they are not the only method for reducing carbon fuel consumption. Further, a claim that the intent is to "impoverish the USA" has a long way to go to be even remotely well established. There's a huge difference between a campaign which will impoverish the USA as a side effect (assuming that it will), and a campaign which is specifically designed to impoverish the USA. Too few people seem able to tell the difference, unfortunately.

Complaining that any action will "bankrupt the nation and countless families and businesses therein" is pretty pointless. Any action taken by the government which regulates (or deregulates) anything else will affect, and potentially bankrupt, 'countless families and businesses'. That's part of capitalism and its reliance on supply and demand. Demand shifts. When it does, the suppliers go out of business or adapt as best they can. Business owners, and their families, are always part of that. We don't, and shouldn't, make decisions based solely on the current impact. If nothing else, we must weigh future impact with present impact. We must weigh net gain or loss. At a state and national level, we have to weigh the needs of the whole rather than the few, though we must certainly remain aware of the few and protect them as best we can.

In the case of climate change policies, the intent is to balance future loss with present loss. Part of that includes minimizing future loss. To do this, we must determine region-specific impacts. We must identify what steps can be taken (if any) to reduce actual impact. If we incur present losses that are still much lower than what future losses would be, that is deemed acceptable. Yes, future losses are a best guess. That's true of anything in the future. Even so, it would be much more irresponsible to simply wave off the future as an unknown. It's one thing to have tried and failed. It's another to not have tried at all.

[seanD]

I think you still misunderstand my full point, though we're closer. Climate does have an impact on local weather. However, local weather events are complex. There are so many factors in play, and the impact of each factor varies greatly, that we can't point to a single event as proof for or against a broader claim. Both sides of the climate discussion make this mistake. Moreover, the complexity of local weather also means that effects by a given factor are going to be much different depending on geographical location. Climate changes may mean your location gets more snow than usual while my location gets less. That's due to the fact that climate changes impact air currents (as sylas illustrated in another thread), among other things. The loop is 'loopier' (to use his phrasing), so California may end up hotter earlier while the Midwest gets more snow than ever. By the same token, certain geographical locations may not really notice a shift. Continental weather patterns are different than coastal regions, and something that has a major impact one place may be unnoticed in another. On top of that, region-specific ramifications of climate change are still being investigated. We can identify some global trends (such as rising sea levels).

Suffice to say that 60-80 years of experience in a location isn't enough to discount anything. For it to count, we'd have to grant all of the following: 1) accurate memory of each year (including those years below the age of 20 where you're not really paying attention anyway, and 20 is a generously low number for that); 2) ability to compare each year to the last including the ability to establish trends (and not just "it was colder this year than last year", but actual values; 3) knowledge of location-specific ramifications of climate change; 4) knowledge of all factors which would mitigate those ramifications on a year to year basis; 5) knowledge of which factors are in play each year and their particular outcomes. We specifically don't have #3. We have knowledge of #4. I think we can get pretty close to #5, though it depends. #1 and #2 are far from given. After all, we're not talking about data recorded by scientists but your (and seer's) experience. Just for grins, let's assume we can get #1 and #2 from recorded data. Without #3, you still can't prove or disprove climate changes based on location-specific weather.



Now, for the final question about "impoverishing the USA by reducing carbon fuel consumption to levels that will bankrupt the nation and countless families and businesses therein?" There's a lot to unpack here. In the first place, I'm not in favor of cap and trade, or carbon credits, or anything else to that effect. However, cap and trade and its ilk are held up as the evil agenda even though they are not the only method for reducing carbon fuel consumption. Further, a claim that the intent is to "impoverish the USA" has a long way to go to be even remotely well established. There's a huge difference between a campaign which will impoverish the USA as a side effect (assuming that it will), and a campaign which is specifically designed to impoverish the USA. Too few people seem able to tell the difference, unfortunately.

Complaining that any action will "bankrupt the nation and countless families and businesses therein" is pretty pointless. Any action taken by the government which regulates (or deregulates) anything else will affect, and potentially bankrupt, 'countless families and businesses'. That's part of capitalism and its reliance on supply and demand. Demand shifts. When it does, the suppliers go out of business or adapt as best they can. Business owners, and their families, are always part of that. We don't, and shouldn't, make decisions based solely on the current impact. If nothing else, we must weigh future impact with present impact. We must weigh net gain or loss. At a state and national level, we have to weigh the needs of the whole rather than the few, though we must certainly remain aware of the few and protect them as best we can.

In the case of climate change policies, the intent is to balance future loss with present loss. Part of that includes minimizing future loss. To do this, we must determine region-specific impacts. We must identify what steps can be taken (if any) to reduce actual impact. If we incur present losses that are still much lower than what future losses would be, that is deemed acceptable. Yes, future losses are a best guess. That's true of anything in the future. Even so, it would be much more irresponsible to simply wave off the future as an unknown. It's one thing to have tried and failed. It's another to not have tried at all.

So what is the solution? A carbon tax?

[John Reece]

It's not so much that my scepticism regarding AGW is based on my 80 year experience in this world; rather, it's that my 80 year experience in this world corresponds perfectly with scientific facts related to the history and current status of climate worldwide, as I am able to ascertain them via reliable sources.

My comment regarding bankrupting and impoverishing is not theoretical, but rather is based on what the EPA actually has been doing quite ruthlessly and unnecessarily to businesses and families. IIRC, a few years ago there was an EPA administrator in Texas who bragged that he treated targets of EPA regulation the way the ancient Roman army did conquered communities: that is, they selected a few representative citizens and crucified them to make an impression on the rest populace ― essentially, to establish a reign of terror.

[Carrikature]

So what is the solution? A carbon tax?

I don't think there's *a* solution. I also don't think there's an "end game" like so many here ask for. Both mistakenly assume, in my opinion, that there's an ultimate solution. I'm far from an expert, but I haven't heard of anything to suggest that zero emissions is a possible or realistic goal, let alone a necessary one. Yes, there are crazies on both sides that insist it should be our goal or that it's supposedly our goal. That's not the same thing.

That said, I don't think a tax is a solution even in part. A heavy enough tax might force some emission mitigation, but in reality the extra cost gets transferred to the consumer. On top of that, all a tax really gets you is increased federal and/or state income. Yes, that income could be used for research into alternative methods, but that's far from a guarantee. Far more likely that congress simply appropriates it for the next brainy scheme. Mandating certain requirements with monetary penalties could be viable, but we've already seen that some companies will just take the hit, so even that won't be enough.

What really needs to happen is market pressure for viable solutions and alternatives on a massive scale. Right now, there are a few environmentally-minded people doing what they can, and some with deeper pockets are attempting alternative energy provisions. At the end of the day, though, the switch needs to make financial sense (unfortunately that's how our system functions). Let the entrepreneurs and R&D guys find solutions, because they will. They just need to see the opportunity first. To establish the opportunity, you have to convince people there's something to be concerned about. Yes, there are right and wrong ways to go about that.

[Carrikature]

It's not so much that my scepticism regarding AGW is based on my 80 year experience in this world; rather, it's that my 80 year experience in this world corresponds perfectly with scientific facts related to the history and current status of climate worldwide, as I am able to ascertain them via reliable sources.

I question your sources when what you present is breitbart and their like. I have no idea of what scientific facts you are specifically referencing, but for my comments in this thread it's ultimately irrelevant. My response was purely in reference to any years of experience, and you weren't the only person to mention them (I know you weren't the first). If your experience didn't correspond with scientific facts, the facts are unchanged. If your experience does correspond, lucky for you. I don't think we really disagree very much, if at all, on this point.

My comment regarding bankrupting and impoverishing is not theoretical, but rather is based on what the EPA actually has been doing quite ruthlessly and unnecessarily to businesses and families. IIRC, a few years ago there was an EPA administrator in Texas who bragged that he treated targets of EPA regulation the way the ancient Roman army did conquered communities: that is, they selected a few representative citizens and crucified them to make an impression on the rest populace ― essentially, to establish a reign of terror.

You misunderstand. I have no doubt that people are and will be going bankrupt. My response is that this is inevitable. It's part of how our system works. However, I have no need to dispute what the EPA has been doing. I'll gladly grant it for the sake of argument. Instead, my dispute is with the implied claim that the ultimate goal is to bankrupt and impoverish people. This has not been established. Even the Texas example does not show this. What it does show is extreme enforcement with a goal of general compliance. The methods may be questionable, but I don't dispute that. The difference here is a major one, as both the conditions of satisfaction of the goal and our reaction to the goal are significantly different. General compliance with an environmentally sound policy is a good goal. If it is achieved by bad methods, that is an issue with implementation. Making people bankrupt and/or impoverished as a goal in itself is a bad goal. The distinctions are important because our steps to correct a problem depends on what the problem actually is.

[seer]

I question your sources when what you present is breitbart and their like. I have no idea of what scientific facts you are specifically referencing, but for my comments in this thread it's ultimately irrelevant. My response was purely in reference to any years of experience, and you weren't the only person to mention them (I know you weren't the first). If your experience didn't correspond with scientific facts, the facts are unchanged. If your experience does correspond, lucky for you. I don't think we really disagree very much, if at all, on this point.

That is the point Carrikature, between John and I we have a good portion of the east coast covered. So I guess we were spared the negative if the increase in global temps over the last century. Ok fine, that is antidotal. So where are the negative effects? Are there more and stronger hurricanes? More and stronger tornados? Floods? Droughts? Storms in general? We are constantly told that climate change will increase the severity of weather events. Has that happened at all over the last hundred years?

[John Reece]

That is the point Carrikature, between John and I we have a good portion of the east coast covered. So I guess we were spared the negative if the increase in global temps over the last century. Ok fine, that is antidotal. So where are the negative effects? Are there more and stronger hurricanes? More and stronger tornados? Floods? Droughts? Storms in general? We are constantly told that climate change will increase the severity of weather events. Has that happened at all over the last hundred years?

Not only what you say, but I would add that you and I have not been limited to our personal observations of climate on the east coast of the USA; we have had the benefit of national reports of both weather and climate available to us via countless TV segments aired multiple times every day telling us all about what is happening in terms of both weather and climate throughout the north American continent, not to mention all the other abundant sources of information about climate worldwide. It's not as though our 60-80 years of life have been spent in the 18th century.

[John Reece]

Denier

For what it's worth, on the subject of "deniers", this is from the website wattsupwiththat.com.

[Carrikature]

Not only what you say, but I would add that you and I have not been limited to our personal observations of climate on the east coast of the USA; we have had the benefit of national reports of both weather and climate available to us via countless TV segments aired multiple times every day telling us all about what is happening in terms of both weather and climate throughout the north American continent, not to mention all the other abundant sources of information about climate worldwide. It's not as though our 60-80 years of life have been spent in the 18th century.

I'm not sure if you missed the point or just don't care.

Your personal observations and awareness of national weather/climate reports aren't reliable. It doesn't matter how many years you've been exposed to them because at best you *might* have awareness of general trends (I seriously doubt you have an eidetic memory). It doesn't matter that other sources are available, because their existence doesn't imply that you're using those sources. For that matter, the sources you have been linking across three (or more?) threads are questionable, at best. All of this is to do with 'missing the point'.

I say I'm not sure if you care because you already implied in post #33 that your years of life on this planet aren't the basis of your argument. Why continue to act as if your years of experience are meaningful? If the scientific data supports your personal conclusions and/or observations, adding your observations/conclusions as weight is pointless. You're adding a grain of sand to the beach, if we even accepted that grain of sand in the first place. Moreover, I already laid out in post #31 what it would take for your personal awareness, observations, or whatever to count. Simply presenting more information you've been quasi-aware of doesn't establish any of those points. The existence of information does not mean you've been paying attention, nor does it mean that the information you've paid attention to is accurate. So, again, years of life on this planet is irrelevant.

[John Reece]

I'm not sure if you missed the point or just don't care.

The latter.

[seer]

I'm not sure if you missed the point or just don't care.

Your personal observations and awareness of national weather/climate reports aren't reliable. It doesn't matter how many years you've been exposed to them because at best you *might* have awareness of general trends (I seriously doubt you have an eidetic memory). It doesn't matter that other sources are available, because their existence doesn't imply that you're using those sources. For that matter, the sources you have been linking across three (or more?) threads are questionable, at best. All of this is to do with 'missing the point'.

I say I'm not sure if you care because you already implied in post #33 that your years of life on this planet aren't the basis of your argument. Why continue to act as if your years of experience are meaningful? If the scientific data supports your personal conclusions and/or observations, adding your observations/conclusions as weight is pointless. You're adding a grain of sand to the beach, if we even accepted that grain of sand in the first place. Moreover, I already laid out in post #31 what it would take for your personal awareness, observations, or whatever to count. Simply presenting more information you've been quasi-aware of doesn't establish any of those points. The existence of information does not mean you've been paying attention, nor does it mean that the information you've paid attention to is accurate. So, again, years of life on this planet is irrelevant.

Then you agree that the one degree rise in global temperature over the last 100 years has had no measurable, negative effect on weather?

[Carrikature]

The latter.

Then why should any of the rest of us?

[John Reece]

Then why should any of the rest of us?

If the subject is my age .

[Carrikature]

If the subject is my age .

You're using your age as a bonus argument. If you don't care to defend it, retract it and stop using it. Otherwise, respond to the counter-arguments. Anything else is disingenuous and/or dishonest.

[John Reece]

You're using your age as a bonus argument.

At this point in time, I am doing no such thing; as far as I am concerned, it has all gone down the great no-memory hole in my aged and ailing brain, never to be recalled again.

If you don't care to defend it, retract it and stop using it.

Bossy.

Otherwise, respond to the counter-arguments.

I don't even remember what either I or you said, and I do not care enough to waste any of my precious little bit of energy reviewing what either of us wrote.

Anything else is disingenuous and/or dishonest.

Not the way I see it.

Almost everything I post is for information only ― take it or leave it.

I am too old, infirm, and weary to engage in argumentation.