Climate Change Politics

The question is not whether Co2 causes global warming (I thought the OK word, nowadays, is "climate change" so you have less to commit yourself to, and anything that happens is evidence).

The question is how much global warming is occurring, how dangerous it is, and to what extent it is man-made. So, the chemistry is irrelevant.

And, now there is an additional issue. Can we even trust the for how much global warming there is, and how dangerous it is.

You do realize that there is also danger in the measures being advocated against Co2 emissions. The danger of joblessness (and at this point) and a return to pre-1900 standards of living. And, for the undeveloped countries, back to the stone age for them. Have you considered that?

I'm not bothered about being coerced into adopting whatever term the US media and/or scientific community currently deems fashionable.

The warming trend is settled - temporary fluctuations are a fact of the matter of climatology - but the trend's in no real doubt.


The chemistry is fairly irrelevent.

The physics is incredibly important.

But - meh - you obviously know nothing about it and have no desire to learn.

If you had a desire to learn you'd've maybe given that vid I posted a watch - and would be on your way to being able to discuss the matter with some degree of informed PoV.


"The"? "The" what?


The STONE AGE?
I have given it much more thought than you - I promise you that.

Economic hardship is a possible risk of mismanaging the effort to reduce emissions - though if the UK were to adopt the green energy strategy of China it would apparently lead to something like full employment here. Green energies and lifestyles create more jobs than traditional fossil fuel power institutions support - (by dint of their relative inefficiency if nothing else) - though the transition would cause temporary hardships, as all transitions do.

It could slow progress, but it needn't require us to abandon our current level of technology. An electric car is currently more expensive than a gas guzzler - but it's not more 19th century, is it?

These are, by the way, transitions that will have to be made one day - because fossil fuels are finite resources. Stay in the 20th century whilst China leads us into the 21st - it'd serve you rightly if it wasn't for the potential damage it could do to other countries to just let you go on the way you are.

The possible risk of failing to manage effect of the imbalance making causes in the carbon cycle could lead to swathes of Holland becoming uninhabitable, pretty much all of Bangladesh becoming uninhabitable (a BILLION refugees looking for a new home if that happens), Copenhagen becoming uninhabitable, many Australian cities become largely uninhabitable, London becoming largely uninhabitable ... I could go on.

In case your ability to weigh outcomes is as poor as your science I'll explain it to you - that outcome would be worse for humanity as a gestalt than some higher taxes and employment transitions.

Whichever way you want to look at it - the sacrifices needed to behave in a prudent response to this threat are far far less than the sacrifices needed to deal with even a slight rise in sea level and changing weather patterns.

I'll happily give props to anyone who convinces me that they have the slightest idea what they are on about regarding what I think is a very important issue. But people who clearly:

• haven't thought about it
  
• don't know the science behind the theory
  
• aren't interested in learning about the science behind the theory
  
• can't be bothered reading the links they post (in apparent support of their own position no less)
  
• can't be bothered to properly articulate a defence ("the" what?)
  
• resort to wild exaggerations (VICTORIAN LIVING STANDARDS!!! THE STONE AGE!!!)
  
• cannot weigh risks without prejudice
  
• and won't answer questions...
  

They maybe get the respect they deserve.

See Bangladesh drown so you don't have to pay higher petrol costs, by all means, you have my blessing. The refugees won't make it to NY will they? Screw them for living on a flood plain man - it would cost YOU money to save them.

I'm reconciled to the fact that there are venal people in the world to whom it's all about money.

You're nothing new.

My beliefs are backed up with an understanding of the factors that influence the issue.

And I've provided evidence of them - without any sort of adequate rebuttal apart from "boohoohoo you're being mean".

Your beliefs - backed up by a lot of wind as far as I see.

But I'll try again - what is it about the CO2 molecule that gives rise to a warmer atmosphere, insofar as you understand it?

Step one of the process to having an actual informed debate, in other words.

Go on - you can vindicate yourself here if you like.

Er, no, Physics mostly, as I already stated. Chemical reactions form the molecules - but don't explain their warming properties.

Even so I don't think Physics is "what it's all about" - but we need to understand step one before moving on to step two.

Step two means understanding the carbon cycle - which is a biological process in many ways, and geological in others.

Just admit you don't know if you like - it'd be easy to learn though.

I would, except I don't know what it is I am supposed not to know that is relevant to whether we should take draconian measures.

Among the smartest and most promising-not to mention controversial-proposals is "climate debt," the idea that rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis. In the world of climate-change activism, this marks a dramatic shift in both tone and content. American environmentalism tends to treat global warming as a force that transcends difference: We all share this fragile blue planet, so we all need to work together to save it. But the coalition of Latin American and African governments making the case for climate debt actually stresses difference, zeroing in on the cruel contrast between those who caused the climate crisis (the developed world) and those who are suffering its worst effects (the developing world). Justin Lin, chief economist at the World Bank, puts the equation bluntly: "About 75 to 80 percent" of the damages caused by global warming "will be suffered by developing countries, although they only contribute about one-third of greenhouse gases."

Climate debt is about who will pick up the bill. The grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology-everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies-are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. "What we need is not something we should be begging for but something that is owed to us, because we are dealing with a crisis not of our making," says Lidy Nacpil, one of the coordinators of Jubilee South, an international organization that has staged demonstrations to promote climate reparations. "Climate debt is not a matter of charity."

Here is an interesting article I read on climate change politics by Naomi Klein.


Climate Rage | Naomi Klein

Sigh! Liberals continue to focus on their guilt. And if rich, are willing to alleviate it with money. Like buying carbon credits. It would be funny if not so pathetic.

well if the conservatives have their way, the rich will buy their own continent, put a wall around it, and leave the other 99.9% of humanity to slug it out for the remainder. But then, if you have no sense of social responsibility, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that idea.

I would, except I don't know what it is I am supposed not to know that is relevant to whether we should take draconian measures.

I mean that we have been told that we are on the edge of disaster (either cooling or warming, they cannot make up their minds) for the last 30 years.

And here we are. You do know the tale of the boy who cried "wolf", I suppose, and, of course, "The Emperor's New Clothes". Don't forget that one.

Like buying carbon credits. It would be funny if not so pathetic.

kleptocracy