Are we sure global warming is bad?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 07, 2019 10:33 pm

Straw man again.

I have not "made up" facts. The consensus is that global warming is real, and generated by human activity. There is no consensus on how bad it may become. Opinions on this vary widely, including within the climate science community.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Wed May 08, 2019 3:23 am

Lausten wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 6:04 pm
landrew wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:52 pm
It's easy to be misled by consensus, particularly when the empirical data isn't strong. They are only opinions after all.
In cases where opinion follows conclusive data, such as a "spherical earth," it's easy to correlate the consensus with the data, but it's a bit of flawed thinking to conflate opinion with data where the data is less certain. In that case, you merely have a large number of people sharing an opinion in lieu of hard data.
Okay, I've rad a few of these and I just can't go on. Lance and landrew are consistently misusing the term. If the empirical data isn't strong, then you don't have consensus. If the opinions of all scientists were in 100% agreement, they would not call that a consensus, they would say it's the opinion of all of us. That's more like a bunch of guys in a bar all agreeing that the Patriots are the best football team ever, it's just opinion, but since they all agree, they could say they have a consensus. But they couldn't say they have a scientific consensus. Even if they got all they guys in all the bars to vote, it's still not. A scientific consensus arises because a majority of the scientists create and repeat experiments and the data is consistent and their interpretations are based on logic. Opinion never enters in to it.
If we had all the facts, we wouldn't need opinions. But in this case it matters very much which question you ask; if you ask: "are human activities affecting the climate in a significant way?," you will get a fairly high consensus of agreement among climate scientists (although it's much lower than 97% if you do the research). The consensus drops off when you get into the territory of alarmist doomsday predictions. This is where opinions and ambiguity are misused to the maximum effect.

It's easy to confuse causation with correlation when it comes to consensus. Consensus often follows certainty, but consensus confers nothing whatsoever towards certainty. Common mistake.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 08, 2019 4:15 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 3:23 am
Consensus often follows certainty, but consensus confers nothing whatsoever towards certainty. Common mistake.
No one makes that mistake except you. Almost manufactured?? Let me put it in terms you might understand:

{!#%@} always follows a meal, but {!#%@} does nothing whatsover in making that meal. ///// Ironic it shows your logic and also reveals its worth?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Wed May 08, 2019 8:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 10:33 pm
Straw man again.

I have not "made up" facts. The consensus is that global warming is real, and generated by human activity. There is no consensus on how bad it may become. Opinions on this vary widely, including within the climate science community.
Of course there is variation, but scan this page, and show me the group that says, "it'll be fine, we'll just use air conditioners and create new farming techniques and I guess some people will die, but not all of us."

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I don't see that, I see "significant impact", "very serious problem", "we must reduce carbon", "widespread impacts", etc., etc.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 08, 2019 9:25 pm

I think I'm following you Lausten to the point that I think there is growing "agreement" on the impact of AGW with a consensus already formed DEPENDING on how you phrase the issue. Right off the bat, huge difference between asking "What will be the state of climate impact on society 20 years from now.........vs 50..........verses "if we do nothing" ........

Too many variables with each motivated party cherry picking their own versions.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 08, 2019 9:36 pm

Lausten wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 8:13 pm


Of course there is variation, but scan this page, and show me the group that says, "it'll be fine, we'll just use air conditioners and create new farming techniques and I guess some people will die, but not all of us."

Are you trying for a record, Lausten ?
That is your third straw man in three posts. I did not say that. The implication that I did is straw man.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 08, 2019 9:45 pm

Nor, Lausten, have I suggested that air conditioners will make it all right. New technology will help, but I am not a prophet, and I do not know what new technology. I see literally hundreds of possible approaches, and many will fall by the wayside, but many will prove to be gold.

But let me help you, so you do not make a fourth straw man. My position is simple. Global warming is real. Global warming is serious, and will cause major problems. It is caused by human action, meaning greenhouse gases. Where I disagree with idiots is when they suggest global warming will cause megadeaths (defined as more than a million), or human extinction, or the collapse of civilisation.

Got it ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 08, 2019 10:16 pm

Lance: "why" won't AGW result in the worst case scenarios already plotted out and graphed by the IPCC....you know like 8-10-12 Degree temp rise or ocean rise of 10 feet or whatever?

Have you put any odds on the worst case arising?

If not in 20 years..........then 50?

What in the WORLD is going to stop continued use of fossil fuels??????????????

I think you do have "causation" down pretty solid. Its the exponent of effects that escape you and a non-scientific devotion to hope for a solution, even though NONE is in any time line to have an effect. Your grandkiddies will blame you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 08, 2019 11:22 pm

Bobbo

As you know, the Paris Accord was designed to limit temperature rise fo 1.5 degrees. I am not that optimistic, and suggest up to 4 degrees. However, anything more than that seems unlikely in view of the determination shown by non American nations (and by the USA once the idiots have been removed from government).

But what you underestimate is the human ability to adapt. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable of all mammal species. In days before significant technology, our species had already colonized all climate options from high Arctic to equatorial desert. From minus 50 Celsius to plus 50. With the technology that will become available over the next 80 years, it is totally reasonable to suggest we can adapt to a 4 Celsius average increase without massive death toll.

The doom and gloom prophets make two major mistakes.
1. They make confident predictions based on stuff they know nothing about, like a climate scientist predicting disease outbreaks, or failure of agriculture to grow enough food.

2. The nowcast fallacy. They make predictions based on changes in climate and ignore the changes in a wide range of human activities that will also occur, like learning how to cope with heat waves. As I pointed out once before, in a heat wave, most deaths are preventable by the simple expedient of carrying a water bottle and sipping from it periodically. The assumption that everyone will be too stupid to do this is kinda stupid in itself.

Let me add something else. I have been reading up on C4 rice. You will probably be aware that half the human species relies on rice as food staple. So it is vital that rice production increase and adapt to warmer conditions. Rice is a C3 crop. This is a kind of photosynthesis which results in lower productivity. But many plants are C4, such as corn and maize, and they produce more biomass per acre. Not only that, but C4 makes the plant more tolerant to warmer conditions and to low water.

There is a major research program to genetically modify rice to make it C4. This will make it produce 50% more food per acre, and grow with less water, and in warmer conditions. Results to date are very positive, and it appears that a C4 rice will be produced well before global warming makes it vital.

Other crops can be modified in a similar way, and there is no need to assume food shortages in the future.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 08, 2019 11:30 pm

Lance: other than the 4th beer I'm on, I don't know why I "like" you, because you are as obstinate/dumb as {!#%@}.

But, I'm buzzed enough not to care.............and thats a good thing..........FOR ME. Mother Earth: well, she's currently being raped but ........who cares?

Values....Lance: Values. ///// Its NOT food production that has ever been at issue but rather FOOD DISTRIBUTION..... you know...based on burning fossil fuels.

As usual: you avoid the direct confrontation I give you. No state odds. No response to IPCC models showing +10C temp rise. Nothing but a vague unfocused non-specific faith that the species/civilization will survive. Rather silly.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu May 09, 2019 12:48 am

Bobbo

The statement that the Earth is being raped is pure emotion, not rationality. It is being changed, not raped. It has been changed many times before. A new world will emerge, and neither you or I know what it will be.

Food distribution need not be based on fossil fuels. As I have pointed out before, the obvious use for the new, compact nuclear reactors is shipping. Once shipped, food can be distributed by electric trains, biofuel or syn fuel powered trucks etc.

Global warming is not an existential problem. It is an economic one. Humanity will have to spend trillions to adapt. This includes new forms of transport. More on dealing with rising sea levels. However, as I have pointed out many times, the world is constantly getting richer, so the money will be there.

IPCC models show warming that has an averaged out probability of 4 Celsius. Not 10. Sure, if we were threatened with 10 degrees that would be a different kettle of fish, but we are not.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Thu May 09, 2019 2:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 9:36 pm
Lausten wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 8:13 pm


Of course there is variation, but scan this page, and show me the group that says, "it'll be fine, we'll just use air conditioners and create new farming techniques and I guess some people will die, but not all of us."

Are you trying for a record, Lausten ?
That is your third straw man in three posts. I did not say that. The implication that I did is straw man.
I couldn't find you advocating for air conditioning as a solution, but you've been pretty clear about saying many will die, it just won't be "megadeaths".
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu May 09, 2019 2:35 am

Lauston

Deaths are indeterminate. There were many deaths in the 2003 heat wave in Europe, but people were unprepared and ill educated in how to respond. That will not be the case in future. Those who predict megadeaths simply lack any confidence in the human ability to adapt. Yet, as I point out, humans are the most adaptable mammals. Even without advanced technology, humanity has been able to adapt to a wide range of temperatures. With the technology we will develop over the next 80 years, the amount of adaptation possible will be massive.

How many will die ? Well, I am not a prophet, and I have no confidence in those who claim the ability to carry out long term prediction. What I do know is that those who predicted doom and gloom in the past fell on their faces. There is not a single case of anyone predicting megadeaths, apart from the traditional wars, who got anywhere near right, all the way back to Thomas Malthus in 1798.

However, there is a long history of people predicting technological wonders who scored correctly. Not always, of course, but the errors are ones of detail, and the general prediction of substantial technological capability increase always comes true.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Thu May 09, 2019 3:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:35 am
Lauston

Deaths are indeterminate. There were many deaths in the 2003 heat wave in Europe, but people were unprepared and ill educated in how to respond. That will not be the case in future. Those who predict megadeaths simply lack any confidence in the human ability to adapt. Yet, as I point out, humans are the most adaptable mammals. Even without advanced technology, humanity has been able to adapt to a wide range of temperatures. With the technology we will develop over the next 80 years, the amount of adaptation possible will be massive.

How many will die ? Well, I am not a prophet, and I have no confidence in those who claim the ability to carry out long term prediction. What I do know is that those who predicted doom and gloom in the past fell on their faces. There is not a single case of anyone predicting megadeaths, apart from the traditional wars, who got anywhere near right, all the way back to Thomas Malthus in 1798.

However, there is a long history of people predicting technological wonders who scored correctly. Not always, of course, but the errors are ones of detail, and the general prediction of substantial technological capability increase always comes true.
It's not only pessimism and bad science going into making those absurd predictions, it's fraudulent accounting as well. Very few of us die from a single cause; there are a myriad of factors that contribute to the ultimate failure of our body at the time of death. Since all of us are exposed to the climate, they disingenuously assert that climate change will "cause" millions of deaths. Among their abundant stock of logical fallacies, this one is called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid or the "accident" fallacy, where for example, someone asserts that carrots cause car accidents because nearly everyone who had an accident ate carrots. They are so embroiled in the propaganda war that they play it unwittingly themselves.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu May 09, 2019 5:42 pm

indeterminate.

Whats indeterminate about time after time when temps in an area exceed X Degrees for Y days that there is a spike in the number of deaths?

Seems rather unavoidable and concrete to me..............regardless of other factors there were or were not present, now or in the future.

I mean: what are you?=======>Stoopid????
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu May 09, 2019 8:45 pm

No, Bobbo.

Deaths in heat waves come not just from the heat. That is one of the oversimplified fallacies landrew referred to. It is more complex, or else the Tuareg would go extinct. It is from heat when you are not prepared. Even simple precautions are sufficient to stop the heat wave deaths.

It is not that I am "stoopid". It is that you assume everyone is. Like saying that someone is too idiotic to go into the shade, and drink water. But a little education will be enough to stop those heat wave deaths.

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Thu May 09, 2019 11:34 pm

>There were many deaths in the 2003 heat wave in Europe

Did anyone do a study if higher energy prices from trying to combat global warming led to people having less air conditioning?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri May 10, 2019 12:35 am

Such deaths, Mike, do not happen to people with air conditioning. They are usually the poor, the sick, or the elderly. Not people who can afford the air con, with or without high power prices.

But as I have pointed out repeatedly, such deaths are unnecessary, and due to ignorance as what to do. English people emigrate to Darwin, Australia, where average temperatures are 10 Celsius more than in England, and extreme heat is, well, extreme. They do not die. Why not ? Because they learn to cope. Other more experienced people help them.

Global warming will certainly bring more heat waves, but heat wave deaths will diminish as people learn what to do. I am aware that Bobbo and Lausten assume that people are too stupid to adapt, but they are wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 10, 2019 7:41 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:35 am
I am aware that Bobbo and Lausten assume that people are too stupid to adapt, but they are wrong.
When the data results change..........so will the conclusion.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri May 10, 2019 8:38 am

Bobbo

There are thousands of years of data about the human ability to adapt. Seriously unlikely that will change.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 10, 2019 2:45 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:38 am
Bobbo

There are thousands of years of data about the human ability to adapt. Seriously unlikely that will change.
Ça va sans dire, but millions had to die for a small number to survive each of those catastrophes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_w ... 2%80%93536
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 10, 2019 5:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:38 am
Bobbo

There are thousands of years of data about the human ability to adapt. Seriously unlikely that will change.
ahem: NONE of the hooman survival challenges were caused by us nor amounted to a world wide total species extermination event/culmination of long term assault AS WE ARE FACING NOW. Ha, ha.......as so often occurs: your argument supports the contrary position. Well done.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Fri May 10, 2019 7:25 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:41 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:35 am
I am aware that Bobbo and Lausten assume that people are too stupid to adapt, but they are wrong.
When the data results change..........so will the conclusion.
There's no point in arguing with you about how many people will die because you only discuss the most extreme predictions. Of course people will adapt, that's like saying things will change. Change is the only constant. What you seem to ignore is that evolutionary adaptation is a product of people dying. And it's a pretty random process. We can't predict where all the floods and droughts and extreme temperatures might hit. So your smarts aren't guaranteed to help you. The only smart thing to do is stop putting so much carbon in the atmosphere.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 10, 2019 7:29 pm

Lance's adaptation scenario also assumes everyone can afford air conditioning and lives in societies that provide stable electrical service.................as if everyone is middle class living in New Zealand. Clue: most people don't.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 10, 2019 7:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:29 pm
Lance's adaptation scenario also assumes everyone can afford air conditioning and lives in societies that provide stable electrical service.................as if everyone is middle class living in New Zealand. Clue: most people don't.
Imagine... if our greatest threat in the future were a shortage of air-conditioning.

Too funny.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 10, 2019 7:36 pm

Indeed. And what is air conditioning except another HUGE carbon footprint?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri May 10, 2019 8:45 pm

Actually, air conditioning itself isn't a huge carbon footprint. It is supplying power by burning coal that is a huge carbon footprint, and I have already told you what should be done about that. But I am not advocating air conditioning as the cure for global warming as I have said several times.

Let me repeat once more my position, since Bobbo and Lausten go off the rails so often, and argue about things I do not say.

Global warming is real, caused by humans, and serious.
However, it will not cause megadeaths, civilization collapse or human extinction.

Certainly there may be some deaths. But there will be fewer than any climate extremist suggests, because people will take action to reduce the harmful impact on humans.

If you are not arguing that global warming will cause megadeaths, civilization collapse or human extinction, we probably do not have an argument.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 10, 2019 9:45 pm

I'll take that bet.

..........................Not happy to do it...........just my own objective analysis of risk and the Tragedy of the Commons.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 11, 2019 12:06 am

Funny thing, Bobbo.

Even though the tragedy of the commons got a lot of press, it happens much less often than the people who invented the concept thought. That is because (SURPRISE! ) people rather often cooperate.

The ozone hole is a case in point. Continuing to generate CFC's would profit some people and some nations, but it has almost totally stopped, and the ozone hole is mending. On global warming, the only real hold outs are Republican Americans. Britain, for example, is due to publish a new national goal, and the smart money is that it will be for zero carbon emissions by the year 2050. Sweden has already put that into law, and other nations are following.

I have a personal goal (already achieved ) of negative carbon.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 11, 2019 1:07 am

Ozone Hole closure was achieved by effective international treaties that involved regulating VERY FEW creators of the pollution. Burning fossil fuels is the opposite in every respect "proving" the Tragedy of the Commons.

You know: just because a few of the words in any comparison are the same doesn't make nearly apposite situations the same.

Conflation: a sin, down right stoopid and too often occuring.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 11, 2019 1:55 am

Nevertheless, it is a valid example. Not the only one. International cooperation, without Trump, is common. Get rid of your idiot POTUS and maybe the USA can become part of the club.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 11, 2019 3:12 am

NO...........its NOT VALID. TOTC is about behavior in an UNREGULATED context. Why don't you tag team out with landrew?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Sat May 11, 2019 4:25 am

CFC ban had exemptions for India and China, and they are making use of that today by creating chemicals with a process whose byproduct produces a potent greenhouse gas in the category of HFC. These have a global warming potential thousands of times as much as CO2. They then collect money from a Clean Development Fund to destroy these chemicals, providing offsets to clueless people in other countries.

>as if everyone is middle class living in New Zealand. Clue: most people don't.

IPCC extreme global warming scenarios are based on high levels of economic growth in the developing world.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am

So if the tragedy of the commons is a tragedy in an unregulated context, then solve it by REGULATING. Duh !

I remember the first article I read on the tragedy of the commons, and it used as an example, a patch of grassed land that the local village grazed in common. I was impressed at the time with the so called logic, but it took some time after before I realised how crappy it was. The big flaw was the assumption of lack of control.

Such lack of control is not typical. Indeed, it is rare. Imagine a medieval village with a common area for grazing. That village will have a mayor, or a council, or a chief. Whatever it is, there will be a person or persons providing local law and control. That control will prevent the over grazing.

It is more difficult when you get away from controlled communities, of course and nomadic herders often over graze. But even nomads have chiefs. When there are several communities involved, it may be worse, and in primitive situations, that may not have an easy solution. But in modern times, cross community cooperation is normal.

Basically, most of the time (not always, of course, but mostly), there is control and cooperation keeping the tragedy of the commons limited.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat May 11, 2019 4:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am
So if the tragedy of the commons is a tragedy in an unregulated context, then solve it by REGULATING. Duh !

I remember the first article I read on the tragedy of the commons, and it used as an example, a patch of grassed land that the local village grazed in common. I was impressed at the time with the so called logic, but it took some time after before I realised how crappy it was. The big flaw was the assumption of lack of control.

Such lack of control is not typical. Indeed, it is rare. Imagine a medieval village with a common area for grazing. That village will have a mayor, or a council, or a chief. Whatever it is, there will be a person or persons providing local law and control. That control will prevent the over grazing.

It is more difficult when you get away from controlled communities, of course and nomadic herders often over graze. But even nomads have chiefs. When there are several communities involved, it may be worse, and in primitive situations, that may not have an easy solution. But in modern times, cross community cooperation is normal.

Basically, most of the time (not always, of course, but mostly), there is control and cooperation keeping the tragedy of the commons limited.
If I may continue using the "grazing" analogy, the remedy for "the tragedy of the commons" is not more external regulation, but internal regulation. Many grazing associations have set up their own regulatory boards, and some have hired a range management agrologist to ensure that the public lands being used by it's members are being used productively and sustainably. These were set up by the people using the resource themselves to ensure that all the appropriate goals were being met. This is not unlike a tenant association in a co-op condominium. The external regulation is more broad and tends to address the public interest, while the internal regulation is designed to serve the individual's interests.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Sat May 11, 2019 8:25 pm

Ten years ago at RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-commons/

It took me a while to realize the numbers were bogus and based on outdated thinking. When I called the author on it, he tried to obfuscate, never admitted the error(China is the big fisherman).

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11686
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat May 11, 2019 10:13 pm

I knew a marine biologist who once explained to me the collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery. Iceland saw it coming, so they curtailed the number of licenses, putting a number of commercial fishermen out of work. They responded to questions about the potential impact on their economy by saying, "Former fishermen can earn a living selling Mercedes cars to the richer fishermen who remain in business." It was done in the interest of sustainability.

In Canada, it was a different story. They received the same reports about imminent collapse of the cod population, but under political pressure to preserve jobs, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sought to have those reports revised until they continued to recommend cod fishing at what turned out to be unsustainable levels. The way I heard it, they were told: "Change the report, or we'll find someone who will." After the cod fishery collapse, the former minister of fisheries, true to form for a slimy politician, blamed the biologists for the collapse, claiming they failed to warn the government of the impending collapse.

Never let it be said that science is immune from the corrupting influence of politics.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 11, 2019 11:27 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:13 pm
Never let it be said that science is immune from the corrupting influence of politics.
The way you report it, the science was NOT corrupted. Just the politics.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 11, 2019 11:32 pm

MikeN wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:25 am
>as if everyone is middle class living in New Zealand. Clue: most people don't.

IPCC extreme global warming scenarios are based on high levels of economic growth in the developing world.
Thanks Mike, I didn't know that. Hmmm....looks like Lance has another nasty confounding fact of the matter to deal with.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19690
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 11, 2019 11:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am
So if the tragedy of the commons is a tragedy in an unregulated context, then solve it by REGULATING. Duh !
Say Lance, why do you say "if"?.....but it does appear you recognize you didn't know what you are talking about....unlike landrew who has not yet admitted it once. Ha, ha.............YOU MISS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE TOTC: regulation of "common resources" is REQUIRED: or there will be a tragedy. ................ Can you dig it?

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am
The big flaw was the assumption of lack of control.
No, its the DEMONSTRATION OF LACK OF CONTROL......eg: what is occurring NOW, with AGW........Glad you might be recognizing the issue.

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am
Such lack of control is not typical. Indeed, it is rare.
This might be too subtle for you, but "lack of control" is indeed rare BUT===>captured for the benefit of those in control RATHER THAN "the commons." I'm sure you ken the distinction? Just look.
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am

Such lack of control is not typical. Indeed, it is rare. Imagine a medieval village with a common area for grazing. That village will have a mayor, or a council, or a chief. Whatever it is, there will be a person or persons providing local law and control. That control will prevent the over grazing.
YES.............again: THATS the whole point.

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 4:36 am
Basically, most of the time (not always, of course, but mostly), there is control and cooperation keeping the tragedy of the commons limited.
Yep................as long as you don't have vested interests contra, deniers, and fantasy pollyanna's in the discussion. Air conditioning anyone???????
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?