RFK Jr. on Snow and Global Warming.

[Brooks]

Fifteen months ago he wrote:
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.

I don't believe a weather trend within one's own lifetime means very much, but apparently RFK Jr. thought it was last year.

Another numbskull diluting the issue.

[Travh20]

I used to say twenty years from now we will look back on all of this man made global warming Armageddon hype and laugh, looks like it is starting already.

[Napsterbater]

The only people laughing at global warming are you guys.

[td57]

Originally Posted by Napsterbater

The only people laughing at global warming are you guys.

We're not laughing at global warming, we're laughing at the people dancing around trying to dodge all the falling dominoes.

[Travh20]

I laugh at the fact we think we can stop it. If we just all work together, and use different light bulbs, and trust the UN and politicians worldwide, we can stop the climate from changing! How fucking stupid it all sounds.

[Napsterbater]

That's right, it's a joke. Laugh it up.

[Travh20]

It is a joke. you actually think we can right laws that will lead to the reversal of the climate? If we were going into an ice age do you think we could write laws that could stop that? The whole thing is like some bad SNL skit, yet people who claim to be intelligent eat it up. It truly is like a religion. It takes FAITH to really buy into it. And once you do, no one can ever deny it or they are lost and ignorant.

[Evil Homer]

The way I see it, if we can stop it, then we should work to do that. If we can't, then what's the harm in trying?

[LionelHutz]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

The way I see it, if we can stop it, then we should work to do that. If we can't, then what's the harm in trying?

What if it's caused by a natural process? Then it could very well be harmful. If humans making the world warmer than it should be is bad, then shouldn't human making it cooler than it should be also be harmful?

[Travh20]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

The way I see it, if we can stop it, then we should work to do that. If we can't, then what's the harm in trying?

What is the harm in trying? Are you aware of what "trying" is? Try huge regulations on business that will force up the cost of everything, and make many businesses who can not afford to get up to code go out of business, forcing the loss of many jobs. The "trying" is what all the hubbub is about. It is all about giving the government yet even MORE power to regulate everything in our lives,a nd gives them a free pass to tax anything they want if they slap the save the earth tag on it. After all, what kind of monster does not want to save the earth? All of this for something that MIGHT work based on a lie? No thanks.

You and I both know that once you give up a little freedom it is gone forever. The government is not in the business of giving up it's power once acquired.

[td57]

Originally Posted by Travh20

What is the harm in trying? Are you aware of what "trying" is? Try huge regulations on business that will force up the cost of everything, and make many businesses who can not afford to get up to code go out of business, forcing the loss of many jobs. The "trying" is what all the hubbub is about. It is all about giving the government yet even MORE power to regulate everything in our lives,a nd gives them a free pass to tax anything they want if they slap the save the earth tag on it. After all, what kind of monster does not want to save the earth?

Kinda like the Time Warner commercial where they "prove" that Direct TV hates puppies...

All of this for something that MIGHT work based on a lie? No thanks.

You and I both know that once you give up a little freedom it is gone forever.

Until the next revolution at least....

[Evil Homer]

But if it is impossible to stop, then none of that will matter because we'll all be dead.

Look at it in terms of cost and risk.

Minimum Cost: Slight economic shifts into different areas and ways of production and buying habits. Increased regulation.
Maximum Cost: Substantial financial investment, economic upheaval, and job loss. Possible economic depression. Choking financial regulation.

Minimum Risk: Slightly altered weather patterns that are still kept in check by negative feedback loops.
Maximum Risk: Massive loss of biodiversity. Failure of natural systems within the environment creating a world wide crisis. Millions of people die. Economic depression. Forced to reconstruct how civilization operates, probably involving martial law, rationing, and heavy government regulation.

I believe this to be an honest account of the situation. If you think I've forgotten anything, let me know. But looking at this, the minimum cost to risk is pretty harmless either way. There is little harm done by global warming, but there's also little harm in protecting the environment. However, the maximum risk of not doing anything is the same as the cost of taking action but with the added weight of massive loss of human life and other forms of life.

It seems pretty clear to me what the responsible course of action is.

[Travh20]

I do not believe government regulation can change the earth's climate. Even if we could completely stop and CO2, there is no way of knowing that the climate will not just continue to change. Only when you have studied every element, every process, both on Earth and energy from outer space and how they interact with each other and rule out that none of those have any effect on the earths warming will I believe that CO2 and CO2 alone among the millions of things that go into climate change is responsible.

[Evil Homer]

Demanding perfect information is a false argument. Scientific understanding of any system is never complete.

We know that the earth is, in fact, warming.
We know that there are many factors that alter the global climate.
We know that CO2 levels are one of those factors.
We know that current CO2 levels are artificially high due to human activity.
Given that the world is warming, and we are in control of one of the determining factors of warming, wouldn't it make sense to try and reign it in?
Now, if it turns out that CO2 reductions are not enough, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so." But considering that if CO2 reductions aren't enough, most of us will be dead anyway, I doubt it will matter much.

The only justification for doing nothing would be compelling evidence that our activities don't greatly contribute to global warming AND that regulation would be unduly onerous AND that the Earth will right itself naturally. I find this to be the least likely proposition, and considering the gravity of the issue, the most risky stance to take.

[td57]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

The only justification for doing nothing would be compelling evidence that our activities don't greatly contribute to global warming AND that regulation would be unduly onerous AND that the Earth will right itself naturally. I find this to be the least likely proposition, and considering the gravity of the issue, the most risky stance to take.

The problem is that WHAT they want to do will not really fix anything. It will only redistribute the permission to pollute in proportion to wealth, although as many get poorer and poorer and begin to die off, there may be some small reductions... temporarily.

Essentially it's a way for the elite to kill off some of the masses... without getting their hands dirty. Eventually though, the masses will figure this out, and one may wonder if their wrath will result in more damage to the ecosystem than is now occurring.

[Evil Homer]

Originally Posted by td57

The problem is that WHAT they want to do will not really fix anything. It will only redistribute the permission to pollute in proportion to wealth, although as many get poorer and poorer and begin to die off, there may be some small reductions... temporarily.

Essentially it's a way for the elite to kill off some of the masses... without getting their hands dirty. Eventually though, the masses will figure this out, and one may wonder if their wrath will result in more damage to the ecosystem than is now occurring.

Um. WTF mate? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[sedan]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

Um. WTF mate? I have no idea what you're talking about.

When the Revolution comes the forces of Good (the anti-climate change Fairtaxers and associated Teabaggers) may have to use weapons of mass destruction to carry the day. They'll be completely justified in doing so, but there may be significant environmental damage as a result. This will be offset by the great number of stupid people who are eliminated from the gene pool.

[Allfather]

Who is this "they" that want to kill off the masses? Pretty nebulous idea with no real basis. On the other hand it is beyond dispute that many activities of man cause warming IN ADDITION to any natural events. Think chopping down forests. Think filling air with smog. What man does he can undo, ... if he will. London fogs were the result of too much use of coal, and England fixed it. The more we try to live green the better chance we have to avoid a coming Positive Feedback Loop that may be irreversible. Check out planet Venus that once had a climate like ours. Do you want to join it? It now has an atmosphere that is deadly poison and hundreds of degrees, enough to destroy the space probes sent there.

Don't take the selfish view that inconvenience to you is the most important factor. Survival of the human race is literally at stake and is more important than me. It is undoubtedly true that natural events like the ending of an ice age are part of the cause of warming, but it is also unquestionable that reversible changes made by man are making the warming increase at a rate that will cause disasters to happen.

Changing to more efficient light bulbs makes only a tiny change for one household, but if everyone does it the result is bigger, and worthwhile. The fact that your own effort is a small part can not justify failing to make that effort. It only justifies trying to get everyone to make those changes.

Actually, laws can have a significant effect, IF they are done right. Increasing the cost of energy may hurt you somewhat but it also makes you more willing to save energy. The same applies to companies that provide energy, and they are already beginning to make such moves. Not enough, but a start. Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution.

Allfather

[Travh20]

It us unbelievable to me that people are still buying into the idea that we cans top the climate of the planet from changing. To me that is as likely to happen as stopping the next big earthquake. These are forces so big and complex we can barely scratch the surface of how they work, much less how to manipulate them to do what we want them to do.

To believe the UN, who can not give a sandwich to a starving man laying right next to them on a mud street without an intergovernmental committee, can stop the Earth's climate from changing is a joke.

[Evil Homer]

Even though the global climate system is very large and very complex, it's also very sensitive. Small changes in any particular direction can have drastic effects.

Besides, the whole of human history has been about control over nature. Why should this be the exception?

[Allfather]

People CAN keep the climate from changing as much as they are making it change. If you are looking for a big cause try on 6 or 8 billion people.

Allfather

[LionelHutz]

Originally Posted by Allfather

People CAN keep the climate from changing as much as they are making it change. If you are looking for a big cause try on 6 or 8 billion people.

What was making it change back during the Renaissance?

[Evil Homer]

I think that's a conflation of the ideas of "Humans can affect the climate." and "Humans are the only thing affecting the climate."

[td57]

Originally Posted by Allfather

On the other hand it is beyond dispute that many activities of man cause warming IN ADDITION to any natural events.

What's in dispute is the degree to which man is affecting the climate. As I've pointed out before, the last three peaks in average temperature were HIGHER than the current temperature, yet were accompanied by LOWER CO2 levels.

I'm convinced that the reason some people want to make this a big deal is political in nature, not scientific.

Now up until today, I've been against this attempt to control people, but now I'm kinda leaning toward letting it go. Let them put in their changes, whether it be climate change, or government run health care, or higher taxes, let them do it. Not because I think it's a good idea... I don't, but because when enough people suffer enough of the negative consequences, REAL political reform will happen. (and No, Sedan, I don't mean weapons of mass destruction... although in some places, violence is the only political tool the people have... so I have no doubt there will be some of it).

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Evil Homer

Look at it in terms of cost and risk.

Minimum Cost: Slight economic shifts into different areas and ways of production and buying habits. Increased regulation.
Maximum Cost: Substantial financial investment, economic upheaval, and job loss. Possible economic depression. Choking financial regulation.

This is still extremely subjective based on your own personal priorities.
The "slight economic shifts" mean nothing globally, but there are individuals who will have their jobs eliminated, their lifestyles altered and their families in upheaval.

Here's how I can present an "objective" risk assessment to outlaw most abortions:

Maximum Risk: You may be ending a human life
Minimum Risk: Women continue to carry babies to full term.

It looks objective except that the writer gets to explain the "minimum" in his own words.

[Evil Homer]

Lets not conflate this with the abortion issue.

But yes, those economic shifts do mean that people's lives will be in upheaval. But on the flip side, those altered weather patterns will have the same effect. Some farmers may lose crops. Some rivers may run dry.

I recognize that there are costs, and that action to prevent climate change will probably cause some suffering. My argument is that the risks of inaction will cause greater suffering.

Comparing the mild cases. You have some people losing their jobs, and some families being upheaved versus, well, pretty much the same thing; some people losing their livelyhoods, and some families being upheaved.

Comparing the extreme cases. You have global economic collapse as a result of overregulation versus massive human suffering and death, combined with a global financial collapse as a result of catastrophic changes in our environment.

As cold as it sounds, you cant argue vast subjects like this on the individual basis. Yes, it's important to recognize that the people affected are still people, but in looking at the big picture, the question isn't "how will this family be affected" but "how will everyone be affected overall?"

On this macroscopic scale, I argue that the risks of inaction far outweigh the costs of action because while the costs are economic, the risks entail both human costs and environmental costs.