Climate Change

[Sparky]

nick:

Actually it is quite logical.
Private companies that are forced by government regulations designed to fight global warming will suffer increased costs that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods produced. This enormous cost is pure waste if climate change has nothing to do with human actions, and can only serve to lower the overall standard of living.

Yes, another cost argument, with the myopic view of waste, if desired goal is not achieved or there are unintended consequences. And regulations designed to improve the environment are considered to lower standard of living?! come on! nonsense!

Aardwolf:

What cost argument are you referring to?

why are we spending billions on an unknown future problem while those billions could be used to save lives and generally improve the living condintions and health of millions of people right now.

Certain programs would do both! Think about what you said. It's nonsense.

Future problems? Such as a need for the largest military in the world to fight off the invasion of Florida by the Taliban?

All "arguments of costs"are applauded by "big business" and the ideology that supports them. We don't need coal, gas, and tar sands !

[nick c]

Sparky,

Yes, another cost argument, with the myopic view of waste, if desired goal is not achieved or there are unintended consequences.

Your response indicates a total lack of understanding of basic Economics. Even the staunchest advocate of regulation of carbon emissions will not deny that it will raise costs, they argue that the costs are justified by the overall benefit of combating anthropogenic induced climate change.

And regulations designed to improve the environment are considered to lower standard of living?! come on! nonsense!

But the regulations in question are based on a false assumption - that human activity is the cause of global warming. If that assumption is not true, and we think it is not, than you have raised the costs of production with no corresponding benefit. Yes, that will raise the aggregate cost of living.

[Sparky]

Nick, I see that it is I who need to get on board, with the "cost argument" as the only consideration. And that the consensus view of EU can not be questioned.

No, I do not understand basic economics, But I am sure that economics is the last consideration to be made! We need to figure out what is influencing the environment in a detrimental way first. See if there is a viable response, then see if the Fascist will give up some of their wealth and power to implement a response.

I advocate nothing except logical, non-ideological thinking.
I dream the impossible dream.

[Maol]

A greenhouse must have walls and a ceiling, lest the hot air escape.

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf:

What cost argument are you referring to?

why are we spending billions on an unknown future problem while those billions could be used to save lives and generally improve the living condintions and health of millions of people right now.

Certain programs would do both! Think about what you said. It's nonsense.

Unfortunately the ultimate aim to reduce CO2 emmisions is diametrically opposed to the need to provide cheap energy (by burning coal/oil/gas) to poor societies so no programs at all, are able to do both. We either burn stuff and save lives or stop burning stuff and kill people. Of course as CO2 is plant food, burning stuff also helps green the planet as shown over the last few decades.

Future problems? Such as a need for the largest military in the world to fight off the invasion of Florida by the Taliban? :

I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion.

All "arguments of costs"are applauded by "big business" and the ideology that supports them. We don't need coal, gas, and tar sands !

Not clear what your point is here but "big business" provides wind turbines, it provides solar panels, it converts food to ethanol, it builds electric cars, and any addiional costs or climate change levy or tax is passed directly to the consumer, which in turn hurts the poorest the most. Big business makes as much money out of climate change as it would any other enterprise. I would rather it made money providing cheap energy to people that need it rather waste limited resource chasing subsidies to provide expensive and almost useless energy to next to no-one.

[Aardwolf]

We need to figure out what is influencing the environment in a detrimental way first.

That's easy. The most detrimental affects on the environment are cold and drought. So to rectify we need to heat the planet which will provide extra warmth and moisture.

[Sparky]

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

I have no dog in this fight. Agendas are being offered with myopic arguments, attempting to overcome a purely logical argument that I found on utube. That argument is the one that should be considered last, IF it appears to be a tie. I will leave the "science" to those who have formed an agenda and push it as the only way to look at this environmental debate. In short, it is boorish.

[Aardwolf]

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

I have no dog in this fight. Agendas are being offered with myopic arguments, attempting to overcome a purely logical argument that I found on utube. That argument is the one that should be considered last, IF it appears to be a tie. I will leave the "science" to those who have formed an agenda and push it as the only way to look at this environmental debate. In short, it is boorish.

That argument is making the assumption that what we are doing (burning fossil fuels) has a downside. What if there is no downside? If there's no downside then doing nothing will benefit everyone.

[Sparky]

[kiwi]

Aww c'mon Sparky take ya whoppin like a man

[Sparky]

Climate Change is way above my pay grade.

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

I think those statements were well qualified, and no specifics were needed. Example: Only narrow arguments were offered against 1/2 of one sentence. If responders can not comprehend what I said, then there is no use in my feeble attempts to explain what I consider obvious.

[Aardwolf]

Climate Change is way above my pay grade.

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

I think those statements were well qualified, and no specifics were needed. Example: Only narrow arguments were offered against 1/2 of one sentence. If responders can not comprehend what I said, then there is no use in my feeble attempts to explain what I consider obvious.

The remaining statements are dependent of the first part I quoted being assumed to be true. If the first part is not true then the rest in meaningless.

However, consider the downside of doing something. What if reducing CO2 cools the planet, increases ice cover, reduces biomass, increases desertification etc. (This is in addition to the current limitation on increasing CO2 which is currently allowing millions to die). Do you consider these outcomes a good thing for life (human or otherwise) on Earth?

I think you're stuck on believing CO2 is bad (as many are) and cannot get past that even though I know you are intelligent enough to reason that an increase in a trace gas required for life can only benefit this planet.

[Sparky]

I think you're stuck on believing CO2 is bad (as many are) and cannot get past that even though I know you are intelligent enough to reason that an increase in a trace gas required for life can only benefit this planet.

What don't you understand about," I have no dog in this fight"!?

It is not I that have a predetermined conclusion. You need to look closer to home.

I know what some arguments are, and I have no strong opinion either way. Evidently, emotional opposition to "Climate Change " is strong against, and distorts what is being presented. Example: Where did I mention CO2???!!!

Is there a part of my original post that you do not agree with? Geeeesh!

[Aardwolf]

Example: Where did I mention CO2???!!!

There was no need to. I think it was a reasonble assumption that your first post related to CO2 emissions and control as this whole thread is specifically about CO2 emissions and control. The opening post;

I am writting this post to gain insight into the EU position on climate change. As I gather, EU dispells with the mainstream view of weather prediction and temprerures rises being generated by CO2 emissions and opt for weather correalations to sun spot cycles. I base this on Ben Davidsons you tube vid on the topic. I was posed a question today as to why the ice (presumably at the poles) is melting. Does EU acknowledge that the ice is in fact melting and sea levels rising? If so, is tempreture the cause and does this rising temp correlate to sun spot cycles?

You then posted with the closing comment;

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

As I clearly made a mistake with my assumption and you're not commenting about climate change brought about by CO2 emissions, then what are you commenting about and why are you commenting about it in this thread?

[Sparky]

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act.

Seems to me to be quite reasonable.
But, I can understand the emotional pain that simple logic would make for someone who has an enormous investment in promoting their agenda without conflicting opinions being offered. So, I take back the , "Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act."
Even though that also seems to be a quite reasonable position. But, I too am assuming that being reasonable is a part of the anti- Climate Change group.