Global warming

[KimB]

Chalnoth, don't be stupid. Few if any people will die in the developed world from AGW, and the cost of saving those that do by CO2 reduction will be >100x more than the cost of saving people dying from other causes.

I'm going by what he said. He said he would rather drown than live in a more crowded area. Which is patently absurd.

Anyway, it is true that there won't be that many deaths in the developed world. You'll get a few more due to additional extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, and fires, but not all that many. Deaths aren't that significant of a reason to pursue AGW mitigation.

We're not going to avert this cost with GHG reduction. At best, we can reduce AGW by a few percent by spending trillions of dollars (at today's non-nuclear green energy prices). Marginal benefit does not come within an order of magnitude of marginal cost right now.

Yes, I know this is your schtick. It's still as wrong-headed as it was when you first posted it. Every ounce of CO2 we emit today sticks around for hundreds of years. Plus, we know that the Earth undergoes dramatic changes in climate at specific tipping points, but we don't know precisely where those tipping points are. Running into such a tipping point would be an absolute disaster, and should be avoided at all costs.

So we should most definitely do everything we can (within reason) to reduce CO2 emissions now. Obviously we won't be able to do tremendous amounts. But spending a couple percent GDP is well within reason.

 

[KimB]

Sorry, I meant to say I'd rather have other people drown than have me being forced into mass transport and a small apartment.

Oh, right, heartless bastard. Forgot. Obviously you'd care if you were in danger of drowning. But as long as it's the guy next door, you couldn't give two shits.

 

[KimB]

But I have decided to decline until you guys discuss the origins of the Sahara desert.

Uh, what? Why? The origins of the Sahara have little to nothing to do with human activity. The Sahara came about as a result of gradual climate change from about 10,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. Humans had basically nothing to do with it. Heck, over that era, we didn't have anywhere close to enough of an impact on the Earth to make any such change. Now we do.

 

[corduroygt]

Oh, right, heartless bastard. Forgot. Obviously you'd care if you were in danger of drowning. But as long as it's the guy next door, you couldn't give two shits.

Unless your understanding of "the guy next door" is "the guy in some faraway 3rd world country", you are wrong. As you admitted yourself, developed countries do not have much to fear from floods or deaths due to AGW, so neither me or my neighbors are at risk.

Wasting 2% of our GDP to fight AGW is ridiculous, your lot isn't going to get any money for that in my lifetime, at least not in my country. That kind of money can build a lot of levees and/or help maintain our position as the most powerful country in the world.

 

[Squilliam]

Wasting 2% of our GDP to fight AGW is ridiculous, your lot isn't going to get any money for that in my lifetime, at least not in my country. That kind of money can build a lot of levees and/or help maintain our position as the most powerful country in the world.

Building levees isn't going to be of a net benefit to the economy, building more efficient cars, installing long term infrastructure in buildings like better insulation and new ways to gather energy such as solar cells and wind power do however.

 

[corduroygt]

Building levees isn't going to be of a net benefit to the economy, building more efficient cars, installing long term infrastructure in buildings like better insulation and new ways to gather energy such as solar cells and wind power do however.

We're already trying to build more efficient cars and all new homes have very good insulation. However, solar and wind are dead-end technologies, I'm sure you meant nuclear.

 

[Grall]

Buddy, I see you're pretty fixed on your anti-alternatives crusade, but just stop for a second and consider one thing:

Does uranium dig itself up out of the ground? No, of course not.

So are you willing to put on a hardhat and become an uranium miner then, and get cancer from radiation or heavy metal exposure (or lung disease from mineral dust inhalation), in order to help maintain your posh comfortable lifestyle?

...No?

Then STFU.

 

[KimB]

Unless your understanding of "the guy next door" is "the guy in some faraway 3rd world country", you are wrong. As you admitted yourself, developed countries do not have much to fear from floods or deaths due to AGW, so neither me or my neighbors are at risk.

Right, because you're a heartless bastard that doesn't give a shit about anybody but yourself.

Wasting 2% of our GDP to fight AGW is ridiculous, your lot isn't going to get any money for that in my lifetime, at least not in my country. That kind of money can build a lot of levees and/or help maintain our position as the most powerful country in the world.

Wasting? Averting disaster is hardly a waste. Nor would it impact the US's "power" (more likely being a leader on global warming would increase it).

 

[hoho]

Spending 2% on protecting the climate is bad while gifting trillions of dollars straight from the pockets of US people to businesses that were "too big to fail" but did it anyway is OK? Interesting.

 

[corduroygt]

Right, because you're a heartless bastard that doesn't give a shit about anybody but yourself.

So, do you help the poor starving kids in Africa/Asia for less than a dollar a day? I doubt it, you hypocrite. You want to force us into giving 2% of our income to ultimately help other countries the most. Guess what, the USA is only obligated to help herself and no one else.

Spending 2% on protecting the climate is bad while gifting trillions of dollars straight from the pockets of US people to businesses that were "too big to fail" but did it anyway is OK? Interesting.

Show me the post where I said taxpayer money should be used to prop up companies that are too big to fail.

 

[hoho]

Show me the post where I said taxpayer money should be used to prop up companies that are too big to fail.

Have you done anything to prevent that from happening?

 

[corduroygt]

Have you done anything to prevent that from happening?

What could I have done to prevent it from happening? I did not require bailing out on a personal level and never defaulted on any of my debts.

 

[hoho]

You could have, you know, organize a protest meeting?

 

[Blazkowicz]

(dupe, to be deleted)

 

[Blazkowicz]

Uh, what? Why? The origins of the Sahara have little to nothing to do with human activity. The Sahara came about as a result of gradual climate change from about 10,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. Humans had basically nothing to do with it. Heck, over that era, we didn't have anywhere close to enough of an impact on the Earth to make any such change. Now we do.

actually we have been able to change landscapes for quite a long time, since the days of agriculture, but of course it took a lot of time to spread.
I once was told that the region I grew up in used to be almost totally covered by forests, which would be hard to believe, but that changed after the invasion by the Roman Empire.

 

[corduroygt]

You could have, you know, organize a protest meeting?

What would that do and how is it related to AGW. I don't go out and protest the attempts to pass Crap'n'Trade either, since I don't think they work.

 

[3dilettante]

actually we have been able to change landscapes for quite a long time, since the days of agriculture, but of course it took a lot of time to spread.
I once was told that the region I grew up in used to be almost totally covered by forests, which would be hard to believe, but that changed after the invasion by the Roman Empire.

The reduction in fertillity in what we call the Fertile Crescent has been at least partially attributed to the fact that that region of the Middle East was subject one of the earliest periods of intense agriculture in a climate that tended towards arid with soils that had limited reserve for exploitation.

Farming disrupted thin soil, and the vegetation that helped retain moisture in the dry parts of the year was replaced by crops that did not protect the soil or retain moisture.
When some years were drier than others, the vegetation was less able to thrive, and so the soil quality suffered even more. The reduced soils lead to weaker vegetation, which lead to faster drying and die-back of the biome.
The exhaustion of local farms lead to tearing up more uncultivated land, which lead to...

A similar modern incident was the American Dust Bowl. The level of richness of midwest soils was such that agriculture survived (heavily fertilized these days), but the billions of tons of lost topsoil was a staggering amount of nutrients lost that took millennia to accumulate.

 

[KimB]

actually we have been able to change landscapes for quite a long time, since the days of agriculture, but of course it took a lot of time to spread.
I once was told that the region I grew up in used to be almost totally covered by forests, which would be hard to believe, but that changed after the invasion by the Roman Empire.

Landscapes, yes. Climate, no (until very recently). Very little of the change in the Sahara is attributable to human activity.

 

[KimB]

So, do you help the poor starving kids in Africa/Asia for less than a dollar a day? I doubt it, you hypocrite. You want to force us into giving 2% of our income to ultimately help other countries the most. Guess what, the USA is only obligated to help herself and no one else.

You just don't get it, do you? If we don't have global action on climate change, everybody, including Americans, are going to suffer. This reluctance to act because others will see some benefit from our cutting emissions is just positively asinine.

You are a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yes but if we do have global action the rich oil barons telling him what he needs are going to suffer. Can't have that.