Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

UNILATERALLY? Who expects the US to go it alone? 191 countries signed the Kyoto protocol. Here are the nations who have not:

Andorra
Afghanistan
South Sudan
United States

So are you figuring that it is hopeless until Andorra jumps on board, or are you just talking out your ass?

Are any of China, India or Brazil considered Annex countries under Kyoto? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you do not include them, then essentially it is unilateral, since that is where the growth in CO2 takes place. Again, if the US had zero CO2 emissions, global emissions still increase Kyoto or not. Pointless.

So let me get this right. Currently we generate 3x what China does per person, and we generate 12 x what India does per capita. And so the fair thing is to expect everyone to cut equally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

UNILATERALLY? Who expects the US to go it alone? 191 countries signed the Kyoto protocol. Here are the nations who have not:

Andorra
Afghanistan
South Sudan
United States

So are you figuring that it is hopeless until Andorra jumps on board, or are you just talking out your ass?

Are any of China, India or Brazil considered Annex countries under Kyoto? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you do not include them, then essentially it is unilateral, since that is where the growth in CO2 takes place. Again, if the US had zero CO2 emissions, global emissions still increase Kyoto or not. Pointless.

as for #2, yes.

Anonymous wrote:the sea level rise issue is mostly ridiculous hype. the consensus amongst climate change scientists (not the skeptics) is if there is any rise in sea level, it would be enough to swamp a beach chair by the end of this century. Sea level has actually dropped since 2004.

It amazes me that so many people are so comfortable speaking with absolute certainty about things about which experts acknowledges great uncertainty. Where is the consensus that there will be no real effect? If by "swamp a beach chair" you mean "less than five feet," that fits with estimates, which estimates are very uncertain. More importantly, even a few feet will result in the loss of several thousand square miles of land in this country.

Anonymous wrote:As for warming - since recorded history, the flowering periods of civilizations have occurred during warm periods, not cold ones.

You're actually saying that global warming will be good for us because in the past, when heating, transportation, and communication systems were incomparably primitive, warmth was a plus. You actually believe that those examples can be applied to the present and future?

Anonymous wrote:No evidence whatsoever or more severe storms because of warming. If anything, it is the opposite.

I'm not sure what you're goal is here, but these terse statements in an authoritative voice do nothing to convince anyone of anything. Maybe you want to try explaining yourself if you're posting things here.

Anonymous wrote:the sea level rise issue is mostly ridiculous hype. the consensus amongst climate change scientists (not the skeptics) is if there is any rise in sea level, it would be enough to swamp a beach chair by the end of this century. Sea level has actually dropped since 2004.

As for warming - since recorded history, the flowering periods of civilizations have occurred during warm periods, not cold ones. There are a lot of cold areas of Earth that could be open to navigation and agriculture if the earth warmed just a little.

No evidence whatsoever or more severe storms because of warming. If anything, it is the opposite.

Can you document this? It's contrary to most of what I read; for example:

(from http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html)

the sea level rise issue is mostly ridiculous hype. the consensus amongst climate change scientists (not the skeptics) is if there is any rise in sea level, it would be enough to swamp a beach chair by the end of this century. Sea level has actually dropped since 2004.

As for warming - since recorded history, the flowering periods of civilizations have occurred during warm periods, not cold ones. There are a lot of cold areas of Earth that could be open to navigation and agriculture if the earth warmed just a little.

No evidence whatsoever or more severe storms because of warming. If anything, it is the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:and there is lots of data about how warmer societies tend to prosper more as well.

? From my armchair review of the world, I see the temperate climates kicking the butts of the tropics for millennea. (I'm not saying that's necessarily causal, but some do.) What are these more successful warmer societies?

And yeah, if sea levels rise it might get damn expensive.

Is there anyone who believes in global warming who doesn't believe that it will cause the sea rise? The final impact of the temperature change alone is hard to say. The transition cost will be immense. And the cost of the severe weather may be worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and tremble...

We are very likely setting ourselves up for a perfect storm of environmental and resource problems that will rival in importance the Plague in the 14th century.

We could take care of this ridiculous debt non-issue by making older Americans retire on a schedule that is more in line with their increased life expectancy and passing a few laws to reform the perverse incentives in our health care system, along with restraining our military expenditures. The debt is insignificant by comparison.

Collapse if we ignore the debt is a certainty. Collapse due to environmental issues is for the most part baseless speculation.

Look at the damage one little hurricane can cause our economy, even when it hits one of our poorest states. El Nino and la Lina are two examples of relatively small climate changes that cause great financial impact. Permanent change in the global climate is a big deal. We have lots of data on how it hurts an economy.

and there is lots of data about how warmer societies tend to prosper more as well. the biggest effects of global warming, if they are adverse, will have to be addressed through engineering solutions. And yeah, if sea levels rise it might get damn expensive.

The idea that engineering is a savior is one big red herring. Wanting a tech solution does not make it so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and tremble...

We are very likely setting ourselves up for a perfect storm of environmental and resource problems that will rival in importance the Plague in the 14th century.

We could take care of this ridiculous debt non-issue by making older Americans retire on a schedule that is more in line with their increased life expectancy and passing a few laws to reform the perverse incentives in our health care system, along with restraining our military expenditures. The debt is insignificant by comparison.

Collapse if we ignore the debt is a certainty. Collapse due to environmental issues is for the most part baseless speculation.

Look at the damage one little hurricane can cause our economy, even when it hits one of our poorest states. El Nino and la Lina are two examples of relatively small climate changes that cause great financial impact. Permanent change in the global climate is a big deal. We have lots of data on how it hurts an economy.

and there is lots of data about how warmer societies tend to prosper more as well. the biggest effects of global warming, if they are adverse, will have to be addressed through engineering solutions. And yeah, if sea levels rise it might get damn expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and tremble...

We are very likely setting ourselves up for a perfect storm of environmental and resource problems that will rival in importance the Plague in the 14th century.

We could take care of this ridiculous debt non-issue by making older Americans retire on a schedule that is more in line with their increased life expectancy and passing a few laws to reform the perverse incentives in our health care system, along with restraining our military expenditures. The debt is insignificant by comparison.

Collapse if we ignore the debt is a certainty. Collapse due to environmental issues is for the most part baseless speculation.

Look at the damage one little hurricane can cause our economy, even when it hits one of our poorest states. El Nino and la Lina are two examples of relatively small climate changes that cause great financial impact. Permanent change in the global climate is a big deal. We have lots of data on how it hurts an economy.

Anonymous wrote:Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and tremble...

We are very likely setting ourselves up for a perfect storm of environmental and resource problems that will rival in importance the Plague in the 14th century.

We could take care of this ridiculous debt non-issue by making older Americans retire on a schedule that is more in line with their increased life expectancy and passing a few laws to reform the perverse incentives in our health care system, along with restraining our military expenditures. The debt is insignificant by comparison.

Collapse if we ignore the debt is a certainty. Collapse due to environmental issues is for the most part baseless speculation.

Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, and tremble...

We are very likely setting ourselves up for a perfect storm of environmental and resource problems that will rival in importance the Plague in the 14th century.

We could take care of this ridiculous debt non-issue by making older Americans retire on a schedule that is more in line with their increased life expectancy and passing a few laws to reform the perverse incentives in our health care system, along with restraining our military expenditures. The debt is insignificant by comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

OK; I think we can all agree that we shouldn't "kill ourselves economically." Short of that, we may want to do something to slow the progress while we devise a solution.

I generally agree that creating a solution is necessary, and therefore more important than curbing emissions. But emissions are bad no matter what, so I'd just as soon get started on that problem anyway. If we fix global warming, we'll still have pollution in general if we don't switch to alternatives.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

What provides a greater threat to our future: 1) the national debt, or; 2) global warming?

if I had to break it down into percentages, I'd say national debt is 99% and global warming is 1%. I'm not convinced global warming is even going to be a future threat. Hell, it might be an asset given our geography.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:regardless, there is NOTHING you can do to stop the increase in CO2. even if the USA produced ZERO CO2, the total amount would still increase greatly because of the growth in the developing world. The atmosphere is connected.

So if the effects are material and they are negative, we will have to engineer our way around it.

I someone arguing that we shouldn't?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 since we have an engineering problem anyway?

I am arguing that (1) we cannot stop global warming unilaterally because our use of CO2 is not going to be the deciding factor. Even if cut emissions to ZERO the global emissions will still increase. So why kill ourselves economically?
(2) pragmatically, if there are negative consequences, it is going to be an engineering problem.

UNILATERALLY? Who expects the US to go it alone? 191 countries signed the Kyoto protocol. Here are the nations who have not:

Andorra
Afghanistan
South Sudan
United States

So are you figuring that it is hopeless until Andorra jumps on board, or are you just talking out your ass?