Cycle 25: No Global Warming - Mini Ice Age Is Next

Quote from futurecurrents:

I have a BS degree in environmental science since 1977.
More...

Kudos, it's not every day a haughty arrogant condescending liberal admits to having a Bull Shit degree.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

We'll take this step by step if you please.

Do you agree that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone up about a third over the last two hundred years and that the CO2 is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels?
More...

I agree with both of those.

My issues with GW are not with these basic concepts but along the lines of the following:

- The climate is always changing, completely independent of man's action, and on comprehensibly short timescales. It was only a few hundred years ago that we had the "Little Ice Age." It's by no means certain that merely letting the natural fluctuations play out would prove less costly, less destructive etc. than whatever effects GW will eventually have. They could well be incomparably more destructive - if, for instance, the Earth were to enter a full-blown ice age. I have very little confidence in our ability to accurately predict either those natural fluctuations, or the eventual magnitude and effects of GW.

- On the other hand, anything which retards economic growth (accumulation of capital) most certainly would leave us worse off in the future, and much worse off on scales of a century or more. Imagine if we had discovered global warming in 1750 and implemented remedial measures which reduced global economic growth by something like 1%/yr: billions of people would be today enjoying the living standards of Congo or someplace, world population would be much greater, there would consequently be more conflict, famine, and overcrowding etc. All for no perceptible improvement in the day-to-day weather patterns.

- Related to the above, we're rapidly exhausting our fossil-fuel stocks anyway. Prices are going up and usage will fall. The best thing would be to allow the economy to accumulate as much capital as possible, making the deployment of expensive alternative-energy (and also therefore 'clean') technologies feasible. Government taxes, regulations, and subsidies will squander vast quantities of resources without delivering any certain result or improvement over what would happen anyway.
 
Wouldn't you think that conservative and conservationism would go hand in hand? Why is waste and pollution something to stand behind? What is wrong with recycling and all the tenets that go with it? Why is destroying the Amazon a good thing?

Much of this seems at odds with the conservative movement, why not conserve?



c
 
Quote from cgroupman:

Wouldn't you think that conservative and conservationism would go hand in hand? Why is waste and pollution something to stand behind? What is wrong with recycling and all the tenets that go with it? Why is destroying the Amazon a good thing?

Much of this seems at odds with the conservative movement, why not conserve?

c
More...
The problem with conservation, and the proper accounting of the unintended and/or unknown consequences of Man's industry, and the subsequent demand for compensation for those consequences, is that it's hard on profits. As the conservative party has become the party of Capital, I think that's why there's a split between political conservatives and environmental conservation.
 
Quote from Ricter:

The problem with conservation, and the proper accounting of the unintended and/or unknown consequences of Man's industry, and the subsequent demand for compensation for those consequences, is that it's hard on profits. As the conservative party has become the party of Capital, I think that's why there's a split between political conservatives and environmental conservation.
More...

I can understand that, but to take it one step further. Much like re-stocking the fish pond, or planting a tree for each on cut down, is there not some common sense to be found here? Major corporations do both, replenish fish and plant trees. [

Deforestation, and over fishing are, of course, just parallels, but does this not make sense?


c
 
Quote from cgroupman:

...What is wrong with recycling and all the tenets that go with it?...

c
More...
The wife and I pay extra for a recycling bin to be picked up. From home at least we recycle more paper plastic glass and aluminum that we throw away.
 
Quote from Specterx:

I agree with both of those.

My issues with GW are not with these basic concepts but along the lines of the following:

- The climate is always changing, completely independent of man's action, and on comprehensibly short timescales. It was only a few hundred years ago that we had the "Little Ice Age." It's by no means certain that merely letting the natural fluctuations play out would prove less costly, less destructive etc. than whatever effects GW will eventually have. They could well be incomparably more destructive - if, for instance, the Earth were to enter a full-blown ice age. I have very little confidence in our ability to accurately predict either those natural fluctuations, or the eventual magnitude and effects of GW.
******************************
Yes but but the current temperature and CO2 increases are entwined happening at much higher than they have in the past. CO2 has not been at these levels in over 20 million years. And the fact that the climate has made rapid shifts in the past is cause for worry not solace. The system is easily tipped into extremes.
***************************************
- On the other hand, anything which retards economic growth (accumulation of capital) most certainly would leave us worse off in the future, and much worse off on scales of a century or more. Imagine if we had discovered global warming in 1750 and implemented remedial measures which reduced global economic growth by something like 1%/yr: billions of people would be today enjoying the living standards of Congo or someplace, world population would be much greater, there would consequently be more conflict, famine, and overcrowding etc. All for no perceptible improvement in the day-to-day weather patterns.
********************************************
Investing in higher efficiency pays. My field is HVAC and in the last fifteen years the units have gone up in efficiency some 60% through regulation. The extra cost is more than payed back in savings. By simply being smart we can save bundles without severe economic impact. This would leave us better off in the future.
********************************************
- Related to the above, we're rapidly exhausting our fossil-fuel stocks anyway. Prices are going up and usage will fall. The best thing would be to allow the economy to accumulate as much capital as possible, making the deployment of expensive alternative-energy (and also therefore 'clean') technologies feasible. Government taxes, regulations, and subsidies will squander vast quantities of resources without delivering any certain result or improvement over what would happen anyway.
*******************************************
Many climatologists believe if we burn all the deposits we doom the earth to runaway feedback-loop climate change. The other thing is that CO2 by itself acidifies the oceans and kills coral reefs etc. and generally crashes the ocean ecology. This will happen regardless whether temps rise or not. Keeping in mind most of the earth's oxygen comes from ocean algae, this is rather worrisome.
More...
 
Quote from Lucrum:

The wife and I pay extra for a recycling bin to be picked up. From home at least we recycle more paper plastic glass and aluminum that we throw away.
More...

Excellent, common sense in my mind. I wish we could apply the same logic to a more global environment, no pun intended. I understand that we still have to worry about China and other polluting countries, but we should lead the way.



c
 
I don't get a newspaper and we don't buy pop, anyway aluminum is not pollution and neither is silicon dioxide. I think that about sums up the most common elements in the earth's crust.

An aluminum can on the ground is not a chemical pollutant, it may be unpleasing to the eye but pollution it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top