(06-03-2017 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bribed how?
And if this paper wasn't meaningless, why pull out of it? What is the benefit of that? All it seems to be doing right now is alienating us from the international community.

Bribed by committing to pay them hundreds of billions, almost certainly trillions, of dollars. If that's not a bribe, what is?

As for the second point, I think you've raised a valid question. Do we accomplish more by staying in and working to change the agreement or by getting out? But I think the answer lies in the bribe. Without those hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, the Paris Accord doesn't come close to working. That means that there is going to be a need for further negotiations, and we will have some considerable leverage. So work to get something useful out of the renegotiation.

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

(06-03-2017 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.

I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?

and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.

I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?

All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.

I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

OO, you probably haven't heard of these things because you aren't looking. I'm tangentially related to a field that is deeply involved with resiliency, which is the term that started being used because of the political context of climate change (which started being used after global warming was being attacked, but it is more accurate), combined with it being an accurate description of the content.

I mean, I doubt you go to the annual AGU conference...

Here seen some links I found that help touch on resiliency.

http://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/climate-resilience

https://news.agu.org/press-release/ameri...gy-policy/

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/...plete_.pdf

In the academic community (especially overseas) a significant amount of research in the civil, structural, geological, and ecological realms is going into how to adapt and develop more resilient communities that can continue to function as side effects of climate change emerge.

Read all three. Nice to see somebody is preparing for disaster, even if it is limited and local. But I don't see it as yet being a key and major piece in the environmental movement, which seems to be focused on staving off the inevitable through reductions. If it was key, maybe I would have heard about it before today.

True, I did not go looking for something that I had never heard of before today. Still have not heard two environmentalists mention resiliency. (You, Lad, are #1).

My personal beliefs, stated here and other places previously, is that availability of fresh water is the biggest problem facing us, and most of that, if not all, is not related so much to climate change as to increased population. We are outgrowing this world. The aquifers are draining. A solar powered car will not slake anybody's thirst.

You want communities to survive, get them water out of nowhere.

yes, I think it is a very bleak assessment. If you have a nicer one that is realistic, I would love to hear it. I don't hold out much hope for the Earth of my great-great-great-grandchildren, and not because we didn't shut down oil. More because we spent the first 100 years solving all the wrong problems.

Water is needed for much more than drinking. It is used for growing food. No irrigation, less food. No water, no cattle.

and, just to quibble, climate change was the catch all the global warming people shifted to when recent data did not support them. It really doesn't matter whether we call it this or that, as the policies urged are always the same.

Your concern about water is a perfect example of the fallacy I was talking about, and how a lot of GHG emissions have multiple benefits. If we can reduce the amount of oil, gas and coal we use for energy production and switch to alternatives like wind, I'm 99% most lifecycle analysis show we reduce water consumption.

And cattle - those are some of the largest contributors to GHG emissions and a huge source of water consumption.

It sounds like a big issue is that you and other get hung up on the climate change aspect and miss the forest for that tree.

And by the way, in serious environmental circles, resiliency has been a focus for a while, it is not a fringe idea or topic.

(06-03-2017 05:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.

I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?

and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.

I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?

All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.

I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

OO, you probably haven't heard of these things because you aren't looking. I'm tangentially related to a field that is deeply involved with resiliency, which is the term that started being used because of the political context of climate change (which started being used after global warming was being attacked, but it is more accurate), combined with it being an accurate description of the content.

I mean, I doubt you go to the annual AGU conference...

Here seen some links I found that help touch on resiliency.

http://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/climate-resilience

https://news.agu.org/press-release/ameri...gy-policy/

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/...plete_.pdf

In the academic community (especially overseas) a significant amount of research in the civil, structural, geological, and ecological realms is going into how to adapt and develop more resilient communities that can continue to function as side effects of climate change emerge.

Read all three. Nice to see somebody is preparing for disaster, even if it is limited and local. But I don't see it as yet being a key and major piece in the environmental movement, which seems to be focused on staving off the inevitable through reductions. If it was key, maybe I would have heard about it before today.

True, I did not go looking for something that I had never heard of before today. Still have not heard two environmentalists mention resiliency. (You, Lad, are #1).

My personal beliefs, stated here and other places previously, is that availability of fresh water is the biggest problem facing us, and most of that, if not all, is not related so much to climate change as to increased population. We are outgrowing this world. The aquifers are draining. A solar powered car will not slake anybody's thirst.

You want communities to survive, get them water out of nowhere.

yes, I think it is a very bleak assessment. If you have a nicer one that is realistic, I would love to hear it. I don't hold out much hope for the Earth of my great-great-great-grandchildren, and not because we didn't shut down oil. More because we spent the first 100 years solving all the wrong problems.

Water is needed for much more than drinking. It is used for growing food. No irrigation, less food. No water, no cattle.

and, just to quibble, climate change was the catch all the global warming people shifted to when recent data did not support them. It really doesn't matter whether we call it this or that, as the policies urged are always the same.

Your concern about water is a perfect example of the fallacy I was talking about, and how a lot of GHG emissions have multiple benefits. If we can reduce the amount of oil, gas and coal we use for energy production and switch to alternatives like wind, I'm 99% most lifecycle analysis show we reduce water consumption.

And cattle - those are some of the largest contributors to GHG emissions and a huge source of water consumption.

It sounds like a big issue is that you and other get hung up on the climate change aspect and miss the forest for that tree.

And by the way, in serious environmental circles, resiliency has been a focus for a while, it is not a fringe idea or topic.

didn't say it was fringe. Said it was new to me, and why in the world would you expect me to go around looking up stuff I don't even know exists. Have you looked up zibbety-bobbety-boo lately? Just in case it might be something? If not, why not? But the stuff you referred me to was focused on local things, not world changes. BTW, I haven't looked up "alternative uses for jellyfish" either. Only so many hours in the day.

just wondering, are "serious" environmental circles just the ones that think Global Warming is reversible by cutting oil usage or building wind farms? Are they the ones that invite debate? Or are they the ones that decline debate because the science is settled?

and yet, you, a serious environmental tangential guy, think we can save enough enough water by pursuing standard environmental goals to make the difference. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you didn't say make the difference, just that some might be saved. Have you looked up how much? The aquifers we depend on are dropping, and few wind turbines will reverse that?

Water is needed for life. I think a shortage of water is pretty serious. Glad to hear we will solve that problem by not mining coal.

I see: what a fallacy that is. Solar cars will make drinking water for us. Goody, goody.

I try to be serious with you and you will not allow it.

So answer me these questions:
1. Is climate change/global warming 100 % man-caused and 0% natural?
2. Can 100% of the man-caused portion be reversed by the measures proposed by the "serious"environmental movement?

I think if the answer to either question is "No", the "serious" environmental movements are screwed. IMO, the answer to BOTH questions is "no".

OO, that was the least serious reply I have ever seen. Sorry, I don't really want to interact with you when you act like that.

But the answers to 1 and 2 are no - but that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not pursue the best alternative available. You seem to be looking for a magic bullet, and that magic bullet doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how some solutions help address multiple problems, but you wave them off because they aren't 100% complete solutions.

And I think you may misunderstand the resiliency topic if you critique it for being local - local solutions are the backbone of the research because climate change will affect different regions differently. So, for example, flood defense strategies in the Gulf coast may need to be different than those in the northeast due to geographic and bathymetry differences. Water resource stresses in areas that rely on groundwater versus those that rely on surface water will be different. Therefore, solutions to those problems will not likely be a singular solution or universally viable. It would be great if they could be though.

And OO, you can try and be a d*** by saying things like I am a "serious environmental tangential guy," but I wasn't trying to talk down to you about not know about resiliency. I understand you don't have all day to study environmental issues, but I think then you should be more open and less adamant that work is not being done in a field you don't know much about. Sorry if it came off that way.

And I said I was tangentially related, because in my Master's program, while I focused on groundwater contamination, a few of my fellow grad students focused on flood issues that started to address and investigate coastal resiliency. Couple that with the research friends and coulleagues have been involved with over the years (especially in the Netherlands), and I would say I'm fairly tangentially related to resiliency issues.

(06-03-2017 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, that was the least serious reply I have ever seen. Sorry, I don't really want to interact with you when you act like that.

But the answers to 1 and 2 are no - but that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not pursue the best alternative available. You seem to be looking for a magic bullet, and that magic bullet doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how some solutions help address multiple problems, but you wave them off because they aren't 100% complete solutions.

And I think you may misunderstand the resiliency topic if you critique it for being local - local solutions are the backbone of the research because climate change will affect different regions differently. So, for example, flood defense strategies in the Gulf coast may need to be different than those in the northeast due to geographic and bathymetry differences. Water resource stresses in areas that rely on groundwater versus those that rely on surface water will be different. Therefore, solutions to those problems will not likely be a singular solution or universally viable. It would be great if they could be though.

Throw up my hands? How in the ^&*((% WORLD DID YOU GET THAT FROM MY POSTS?


What i would like to see is a planned attack toward a defined goal. something that will solve the problem rather than just buy more time to ignore the problem.

From your links:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) today announced the launch of the Resilience Dialogues, a collaborative effort between federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and private partners, to help local communities address climate-related vulnerabilities. The program will initially focus on historically underserved communities by prioritizing urban, tribal, and small rural communities.

Consistent with the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, FEMA is supporting
efforts to streamline the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs so they can better respond to the needs
of communities nationwide as they address the impacts of climate change.

Now I am all in favor of building levees in Mississippi and drilling water wells in Tanzania, but there is nothing here on a world wide basis. world wide strategies are to eliminate oil and coal, not to help local communities learn to do without oil.


the actions the "serious environmental community" want to take will not solve the problem, either of global warming, nor of water shortage. I think it is a mistake to expend our energies and wealth on those things thinking it will solve the problem. if all you want to do is kick the can down the road for another 30-40 years, current programs will work just fine to achieve that goal. Then what?

I don't think we have an answer that will set us up for permanent stability, either in temperature control or water production. Overpopulation will get us in the end. Maybe you are right - just delay the inevitable a couple of decades. If half measures are the best we can do, then do them.

lad, if you want, I am quite willing for us to go on mutual ignore. Let me know if that solution agrees with you.

(06-03-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, that was the least serious reply I have ever seen. Sorry, I don't really want to interact with you when you act like that.

But the answers to 1 and 2 are no - but that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not pursue the best alternative available. You seem to be looking for a magic bullet, and that magic bullet doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how some solutions help address multiple problems, but you wave them off because they aren't 100% complete solutions.

And I think you may misunderstand the resiliency topic if you critique it for being local - local solutions are the backbone of the research because climate change will affect different regions differently. So, for example, flood defense strategies in the Gulf coast may need to be different than those in the northeast due to geographic and bathymetry differences. Water resource stresses in areas that rely on groundwater versus those that rely on surface water will be different. Therefore, solutions to those problems will not likely be a singular solution or universally viable. It would be great if they could be though.

Throw up my hands? How in the ^&*((% WORLD DID YOU GET THAT FROM MY POSTS?


What i would like to see is a planned attack toward a defined goal. something that will solve the problem rather than just buy more time to ignore the problem.

From your links:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) today announced the launch of the Resilience Dialogues, a collaborative effort between federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and private partners, to help local communities address climate-related vulnerabilities. The program will initially focus on historically underserved communities by prioritizing urban, tribal, and small rural communities.

Consistent with the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, FEMA is supporting
efforts to streamline the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs so they can better respond to the needs
of communities nationwide as they address the impacts of climate change.

Now I am all in favor of building levees in Mississippi and drilling water wells in Tanzania, but there is nothing here on a world wide basis. world wide strategies are to eliminate oil and coal, not to help local communities learn to do without oil.


the actions the "serious environmental community" want to take will not solve the problem, either of global warming, nor of water shortage. I think it is a mistake to expend our energies and wealth on those things thinking it will solve the problem. if all you want to do is kick the can down the road for another 30-40 years, current programs will work just fine to achieve that goal. Then what?

I don't think we have an answer that will set us up for permanent stability, either in temperature control or water production. Overpopulation will get us in the end. Maybe you are right - just delay the inevitable a couple of decades. If half measures are the best we can do, then do them.

lad, if you want, I am quite willing for us to go on mutual ignore. Let me know if that solution agrees with you.

I see no reason to ignore, so long as things stay civil and don't completely degrade to cheap shots.

The issue, and why I came to the throwing up your hands conclusion, is that your aim of having a single, global strategy isn't not possible. There aren't too many stakeholders, too many variables, and on and on. And because of that, we should not let perfection get in the way of progress.

So what if reduction in GHG doesn't completely reverse global warming? It will reduce rate of GHG accumulation, reduce resource use, reduce pollution, and likely not push us towards developing even newer technologies that will likely solve our problem a in a better way.

(06-03-2017 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, that was the least serious reply I have ever seen. Sorry, I don't really want to interact with you when you act like that.

But the answers to 1 and 2 are no - but that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not pursue the best alternative available. You seem to be looking for a magic bullet, and that magic bullet doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how some solutions help address multiple problems, but you wave them off because they aren't 100% complete solutions.

And I think you may misunderstand the resiliency topic if you critique it for being local - local solutions are the backbone of the research because climate change will affect different regions differently. So, for example, flood defense strategies in the Gulf coast may need to be different than those in the northeast due to geographic and bathymetry differences. Water resource stresses in areas that rely on groundwater versus those that rely on surface water will be different. Therefore, solutions to those problems will not likely be a singular solution or universally viable. It would be great if they could be though.

Throw up my hands? How in the ^&*((% WORLD DID YOU GET THAT FROM MY POSTS?


What i would like to see is a planned attack toward a defined goal. something that will solve the problem rather than just buy more time to ignore the problem.

From your links:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) today announced the launch of the Resilience Dialogues, a collaborative effort between federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and private partners, to help local communities address climate-related vulnerabilities. The program will initially focus on historically underserved communities by prioritizing urban, tribal, and small rural communities.

Consistent with the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, FEMA is supporting
efforts to streamline the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs so they can better respond to the needs
of communities nationwide as they address the impacts of climate change.

Now I am all in favor of building levees in Mississippi and drilling water wells in Tanzania, but there is nothing here on a world wide basis. world wide strategies are to eliminate oil and coal, not to help local communities learn to do without oil.


the actions the "serious environmental community" want to take will not solve the problem, either of global warming, nor of water shortage. I think it is a mistake to expend our energies and wealth on those things thinking it will solve the problem. if all you want to do is kick the can down the road for another 30-40 years, current programs will work just fine to achieve that goal. Then what?

I don't think we have an answer that will set us up for permanent stability, either in temperature control or water production. Overpopulation will get us in the end. Maybe you are right - just delay the inevitable a couple of decades. If half measures are the best we can do, then do them.

lad, if you want, I am quite willing for us to go on mutual ignore. Let me know if that solution agrees with you.

I see no reason to ignore, so long as things stay civil and don't completely degrade to cheap shots.

The issue, and why I came to the throwing up your hands conclusion, is that your aim of having a single, global strategy isn't not possible. There aren't too many stakeholders, too many variables, and on and on. And because of that, we should not let perfection get in the way of progress.

So what if reduction in GHG doesn't completely reverse global warming? It will reduce rate of GHG accumulation, reduce resource use, reduce pollution, and likely not push us towards developing even newer technologies that will likely solve our problem a in a better way.

If you want to remain, civil, stop telling me I should have looked up so,etching I have never heard of, and stop telling I advocate throwing up my hands and quitting. I thought both of those inferences were uncivil.

I seem to be having a hard time explaining myself plainly enough. I will try this:

I would rather see the world focus on saving itself rather than just delaying things. We cannot do the former if we are focused on the latter.

What does this have to do with GW? A lot of people in what you term"serious environal" groups seem to think the current trend is reversible, and their energy and resources are being applied to that. I can only ask, reversed to what? How will we know when we are done?of course, The only reply I ever get is that I am a climate denier, and it is better to do something useless than to do nothing.

My offer to you stands. I deal with you because you, more than others, seem to consider what you are saying and are less dogmatic. I deal with you because I respect you.

(06-03-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

The problem is that no one view can even come up with the basic solution to : if we add x gigatonnes of CO2 output next year, what will the quantitative effect be on added thermal retention of the Earth biosphere overall, let alone what the effects will be in some sum certain time in the future.

I'm sure there would be some net effect, but most environmentalists take the stance that we should stop *everything* without actually being able to answer in that previous query in anything like a scientific manner as it presently stands.

(06-03-2017 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

The problem is that no one view can even come up with the basic solution to : if we add x gigatonnes of CO2 output next year, what will the quantitative effect be on added thermal retention of the Earth biosphere overall, let alone what the effects will be in some sum certain time in the future.

I'm sure there would be some net effect, but most environmentalists take the stance that we should stop *everything* without actually being able to answer in that previous query in anything like a scientific manner as it presently stands.

Just want to point out that nobody ever demands this level of certainty before implementing things like tax cuts. If we reduce the top tax bracket by X% next year, what will the exact quantitative effect be on GDP? Nobody really knows, but presumably tax cut supporters are confident enough in the correlation to advance the policy.

(06-03-2017 08:57 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

The problem is that no one view can even come up with the basic solution to : if we add x gigatonnes of CO2 output next year, what will the quantitative effect be on added thermal retention of the Earth biosphere overall, let alone what the effects will be in some sum certain time in the future.

I'm sure there would be some net effect, but most environmentalists take the stance that we should stop *everything* without actually being able to answer in that previous query in anything like a scientific manner as it presently stands.

Just want to point out that nobody ever demands this level of certainty before implementing things like tax cuts. If we reduce the top tax bracket by X% next year, what will the exact quantitative effect be on GDP? Nobody really knows, but presumably tax cut supporters are confident enough in the correlation to advance the policy.

Just want to point out the root of the question for AGW is rooted in hard science. Real bad analogy comparing questions that intrinsically cannot be answered (i.e. macroecon) to that degree with ones that supposedly can (physics).

And the effects of the questions for reactions to AGW have about three or four more zeroes after them (if not more) than do the tax questions.

And, to be honest, if the tax effect questions were off as much as the present AGW climate models, there would be no fing way you would base actions off of them.

Look, at the base CO2 *is* a molecule that absorbs energy and re-emits it. No question of it, and no question that is increasing, and no question that it is/will have *some* effect as feedback driver to warming. Beyond that, there are hardly any models that even come close to predictive accuracy without massive and continuous backtweaking.

(06-03-2017 09:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 08:57 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.
I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?
and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.
I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?
All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.
I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

Good job of expressing some thoughts that I was trying to find the way to express.

This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

It's going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

The problem is that no one view can even come up with the basic solution to : if we add x gigatonnes of CO2 output next year, what will the quantitative effect be on added thermal retention of the Earth biosphere overall, let alone what the effects will be in some sum certain time in the future.

I'm sure there would be some net effect, but most environmentalists take the stance that we should stop *everything* without actually being able to answer in that previous query in anything like a scientific manner as it presently stands.

Just want to point out that nobody ever demands this level of certainty before implementing things like tax cuts. If we reduce the top tax bracket by X% next year, what will the exact quantitative effect be on GDP? Nobody really knows, but presumably tax cut supporters are confident enough in the correlation to advance the policy.

Just want to point out the root of the question for AGW is rooted in hard science. Real bad analogy comparing questions that intrinsically cannot be answered (i.e. macroecon) to that degree with ones that supposedly can (physics).

And the effects of the questions for reactions to AGW have about three or four more zeroes after them (if not more) than do the tax questions.

And, to be honest, if the tax effect questions were off as much as the present AGW climate models, there would be no fing way you would base actions off of them.

Look, at the base CO2 *is* a molecule that absorbs energy and re-emits it. No question of it, and no question that is increasing, and no question that it is/will have *some* effect as feedback driver to warming. Beyond that, there are hardly any models that even come close to predictive accuracy without massive and continuous backtweaking.

Yeah, the problem with climate models are their uncertainty because of how complex the world's climate is, and how it is near impossible to include or even know every single factor that will affect global climate and how it will.

However, going to a foundationa level as you mentioned, and looking at the basic chemistry of things, we (humans) are producing more CO2 than we ever have before. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. The only way that this wouldn't lead to overall increases in temperatures and climate change is if there was a natural or anthropogenic mitigator that completely negated those gains. You have some things like volcanic activity that do that (and many believe that those account for some errors in model outputs) or you have oceans that can absorb the CO2 (but that is already the likely cause of massive coral reef deaths due to ocean acidification).

So because of that fundamental understanding of chemistry, it my mind, it makes more sense to address the problem as if there isn't some great, natural mitigator that we don't know yet and aren't accounting for, as opposed to not acting because we do not have all of the facts and don't have models developed that are accurate enough.

I always wonder if these climate models have done more harm than good, because a lot of people try to treat them as dogmatic truth (when they aren't, they are just modes) and others try to use their uncertainty to shut down the idea of addressing GHG emissions.

(06-03-2017 07:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, that was the least serious reply I have ever seen. Sorry, I don't really want to interact with you when you act like that.

But the answers to 1 and 2 are no - but that is not a reason to throw up your hands and not pursue the best alternative available. You seem to be looking for a magic bullet, and that magic bullet doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how some solutions help address multiple problems, but you wave them off because they aren't 100% complete solutions.

And I think you may misunderstand the resiliency topic if you critique it for being local - local solutions are the backbone of the research because climate change will affect different regions differently. So, for example, flood defense strategies in the Gulf coast may need to be different than those in the northeast due to geographic and bathymetry differences. Water resource stresses in areas that rely on groundwater versus those that rely on surface water will be different. Therefore, solutions to those problems will not likely be a singular solution or universally viable. It would be great if they could be though.

Throw up my hands? How in the ^&*((% WORLD DID YOU GET THAT FROM MY POSTS?


What i would like to see is a planned attack toward a defined goal. something that will solve the problem rather than just buy more time to ignore the problem.

From your links:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) today announced the launch of the Resilience Dialogues, a collaborative effort between federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and private partners, to help local communities address climate-related vulnerabilities. The program will initially focus on historically underserved communities by prioritizing urban, tribal, and small rural communities.

Consistent with the President’s Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, FEMA is supporting
efforts to streamline the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs so they can better respond to the needs
of communities nationwide as they address the impacts of climate change.

Now I am all in favor of building levees in Mississippi and drilling water wells in Tanzania, but there is nothing here on a world wide basis. world wide strategies are to eliminate oil and coal, not to help local communities learn to do without oil.


the actions the "serious environmental community" want to take will not solve the problem, either of global warming, nor of water shortage. I think it is a mistake to expend our energies and wealth on those things thinking it will solve the problem. if all you want to do is kick the can down the road for another 30-40 years, current programs will work just fine to achieve that goal. Then what?

I don't think we have an answer that will set us up for permanent stability, either in temperature control or water production. Overpopulation will get us in the end. Maybe you are right - just delay the inevitable a couple of decades. If half measures are the best we can do, then do them.

lad, if you want, I am quite willing for us to go on mutual ignore. Let me know if that solution agrees with you.

I see no reason to ignore, so long as things stay civil and don't completely degrade to cheap shots.

The issue, and why I came to the throwing up your hands conclusion, is that your aim of having a single, global strategy isn't not possible. There aren't too many stakeholders, too many variables, and on and on. And because of that, we should not let perfection get in the way of progress.

So what if reduction in GHG doesn't completely reverse global warming? It will reduce rate of GHG accumulation, reduce resource use, reduce pollution, and likely not push us towards developing even newer technologies that will likely solve our problem a in a better way.

If you want to remain, civil, stop telling me I should have looked up so,etching I have never heard of, and stop telling I advocate throwing up my hands and quitting. I thought both of those inferences were uncivil.

I seem to be having a hard time explaining myself plainly enough. I will try this:

I would rather see the world focus on saving itself rather than just delaying things. We cannot do the former if we are focused on the latter.

What does this have to do with GW? A lot of people in what you term"serious environal" groups seem to think the current trend is reversible, and their energy and resources are being applied to that. I can only ask, reversed to what? How will we know when we are done?of course, The only reply I ever get is that I am a climate denier, and it is better to do something useless than to do nothing.

My offer to you stands. I deal with you because you, more than others, seem to consider what you are saying and are less dogmatic. I deal with you because I respect you.

OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.

And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.

It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).

So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.
And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).
So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

I think where OO and I both have problems is the definition of progress. To me, and I think to him as well, the dialogue sounds something like this:

Global warming is a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what should we do?
Abandon oil, coal, and all fossil fuels.
But we have nothing to replace them with.
No matter, just abandon them and science will come up with something.
Anything else?
Oh yes, send trillions of dollars to developing countries.
Will those things solve the problem?
No.

The AGW crowd is trying to push costly actions with minimal benefits. The only way to do that is to stir up such a frenzy that people will make irrational decisions.

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.

And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.

It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).

So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

It sounds like I DO care? It sounds to me like you started from a belief that I DIDN'T
care.

So IF that is the case? Sounds like you are not convinced that I really care.

I care enough that I point half-actions taken in the name of better to do something will not help us reach our goal, especially if we do not have a goal. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me the goal and how all these actions are steps toward that goal.

I think in the "serious" environmental movement, the actions ARE the goals. The goal is not, for example, to reverse global warming and achieve a return to the climate of, say, 1650, by 2050. The goal is to eliminate gas powered cars. Wonderful. Maybe we will have zero oil production worldwide, but will we have reversed global warming? Nobody knows, but the best guess is "no".

(06-04-2017 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.
And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).
So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

I think where OO and I both have problems is the definition of progress. To me, and I think to him as well, the dialogue sounds something like this:

Global warming is a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what should we do?
Abandon oil, coal, and all fossil fuels.
But we have nothing to replace them with.
No matter, just abandon them and science will come up with something.
Anything else?
Oh yes, send trillions of dollars to developing countries.
Will those things solve the problem?
No.

The AGW crowd is trying to push costly actions with minimal benefits. The only way to do that is to stir up such a frenzy that people will make irrational decisions.

So it's just a messaging issue you have?

I don't think any mainstream environmentalist is suggesting that overnight we abandon our current energy infrastructure because it isn't feasible. And that isn't what the Paris Accords suggested.

The Accord suggested we continue to push for reductions, which we can easily do by working on increasing the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles or continuing to support the development of hybrid/electric cars. Or investing in green infrastructure to support our electrical grid until we can develop a more feasible method (battery/storage technology, nuclear [well, that isn't a development issue, that's a public opinion issue]) to provide a consistent base load and peak supplements when needed.

Honestly, no one is seriously suggesting that we abandon fossil fuels overnight, and unless I'm mistaken, no serious legislation/treaty has suggested such.

(06-04-2017 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.
And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).
So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

I think where OO and I both have problems is the definition of progress. To me, and I think to him as well, the dialogue sounds something like this:

Global warming is a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what should we do?
Abandon oil, coal, and all fossil fuels.
But we have nothing to replace them with.
No matter, just abandon them and science will come up with something.
Anything else?
Oh yes, send trillions of dollars to developing countries.
Will those things solve the problem?
No.

The AGW crowd is trying to push costly actions with minimal benefits. The only way to do that is to stir up such a frenzy that people will make irrational decisions.

Right, as far as it goes.

Those "costly actions with minimal benefits" have become the goal, not a means to an end, since there is no overall goal. It is unfortunate that anybody who disagrees with minigoals on any basis are thought not to care or labeled deniers.

I don't think we can reverse warming, since it is mostly Mother Nature. I would love to be proven wrong. But nobody will even acknowledge the natural portion of GW. It's all Man, and therefore it is Man that can correct it. The hubris of it all.

(06-04-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.

And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.

It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).

So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

It sounds like I DO care? It sounds to me like you started from a belief that I DIDN'T
care.

So IF that is the case? Sounds like you are not convinced that I really care.

I care enough that I point half-actions taken in the name of better to do something will not help us reach our goal, especially if we do not have a goal. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me the goal and how all these actions are steps toward that goal.

I think in the "serious" environmental movement, the actions ARE the goals. The goal is not, for example, to reverse global warming and achieve a return to the climate of, say, 1650, by 2050. The goal is to eliminate gas powered cars. Wonderful. Maybe we will have zero oil production worldwide, but will we have reversed global warming? Nobody knows, but the best guess is "no".

Well, with the Paris Accords you did have a goal that was explicitly stated:

Quote: a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels

So you just don't like that goal? You keep bringing up specific dates of what climate we should attempt to get to - why do you think that is the only way to look at efforts to curb climate change?

And there are other goals in the Accord that deal with the more tangible issues, like:

Quote:
Governments agreed to: (i) strengthen societies' ability to deal with the impacts of climate change; and (ii) provide continued and enhanced international support for adaptation to developing countries.

Both from here: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/inte...s/paris_en

You will not see some world-wide goal for combating the effects of climate change because the effects will affect every country, province, city, etc. differently, and a one size fits all approach won't work.

I mean, as a conservative who I would assume, prefers less centralized government and the ability for individual communities to address problems as they see fit, doesn't a world-wide goal/plan go against your views on how government (especially on a global scale) could work? The Paris Accords was basically world-wide federalism, where a relatively minimal amount of requirements were set forth and each country was left to decide how to meet those requirements.

(06-04-2017 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.
And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).
So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

I think where OO and I both have problems is the definition of progress. To me, and I think to him as well, the dialogue sounds something like this:

Global warming is a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what should we do?
Abandon oil, coal, and all fossil fuels.
But we have nothing to replace them with.
No matter, just abandon them and science will come up with something.
Anything else?
Oh yes, send trillions of dollars to developing countries.
Will those things solve the problem?
No.

The AGW crowd is trying to push costly actions with minimal benefits. The only way to do that is to stir up such a frenzy that people will make irrational decisions.

Right, as far as it goes.

Those "costly actions with minimal benefits" have become the goal, not a means to an end, since there is no overall goal. It is unfortunate that anybody who disagrees with minigoals on any basis are thought not to care or labeled deniers.

I don't think we can reverse warming, since it is mostly Mother Nature. I would love to be proven wrong. But nobody will even acknowledge the natural portion of GW. It's all Man, and therefore it is Man that can correct it. The hubris of it all.

That is potentially really disingenuous.

I can go to the main page on the EU website on climate change (https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en) and it doesn't say that global warming is ALL man.

Quote: The world's leading climate scientists think human activities are almost certainly the main cause of the warming observed since the middle of the 20th century.

It specifically says main - not entire.

And then look at NOAA - this short paper is a primer on natural influences vs anthropogenic influences: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/p...whuman.pdf

They even take into account anthropogenic cooling.

I think what's happened is that both sides I guess exaggerate their positions until one side thinks the other doesn't believe humans are influencing the climate and the other thinks the other side thinks humans are the only thing influencing the climate?