What if climate change is no hoax?

No one has ever denied climate change. Surely you know that.

 

Not any more....but a review of a couple years ago on this very forum disputes you commentary.

 

Then we'll have to adapt to a new environment.

 

This is your answer to what we would do with if climate change is real... we will simply adapt

I guess that using a similar logic, we could easily adapt to the impact of proposed climate change mitigation strategies like a carbon tax....

 

I didn't say anything about it being easy. Why are you trying to change what I said?

 

I beg your pardon. I thought that you were implying that adaptation to climate change would be easy

So do you then agree that adaptation to climate might be difficult? In fact, imo, we just do not know the level of difficulty. Which in turn raises the possibility that it may be less difficult to proactively mitigate the potential problem rather than adapt afterwards

 

Yes, we could adapt to a climate change mitigation strategy like a carbon tax, the poor would walk the streets, eat less, and shiver in their shelters and the wealthy would continue to burn carbon, eat well, and travel without the inconvenience of the masses clogging the roads. But for what purpose? As long as we emit any amount of CO2 the atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be rising, the climate will continue to change. Mitigation is a futile effort that will cost billions and still not be successful in halting climate change.

The real hoax is thinking that we, as a planet, will ever stop farming, logging, mining, manufacturing , or burning fossil fuels to the degree necessary to stabilize the cliimate.

The reasonable course of action is to learn to adapt to the new climate, avoid the high risk locations and take advantage of new opportunities when they exist.

 

Let me guess... you object to so called alarmists
But do not see the above as what it is.... alarmism

Again with the alarmism
Stop farming... who has proposed that?
“To the degree necessary to stabilize the climate”
.stop logging, who has proposed that?

your pretend that that unless a problem can be 100% solved
The problem should be ignored

There are all sorts of reasonable strategies...
In fact, many of those strategies are being worked on an implemented
Solar energy and conservation are simple examples
What is the economy crushing downside of more fuel efficient cars, buildings, appliances
What is so terrible about encouraging solar power,
Or researching fusion energy
Why would people object to insisting that manufacturers list the energy usage of their products so that people have the opportunity of choosing more efficient products

And finally... lets say that you agree that co2 emissions are contributing to climate change
Lets say there is a cost to adapting to climate change
Lets say that the current situation is that people who emit co2 do not ultimately bear the adaptation cost implied by their emissions.... then what is so bad about assessing taxes on those emissions which raise the cost to be more in line with the economic impact caused by those emissions?
I mean... obviously we gotta continue to collect taxes one way or another...
We currently tax income... why not have a socially useful tax on carbon as a replacement for income taxes

 

It may be.

Heres what we know for certain:

Attempting to prevent climate change will be extremely difficult, require much sacrifice and is not guaranteed to succeed (because it may be too late and/or we may not be causing it).

Adapting to climate change will likely be extremely difficult but success is far more likely (because its measured differently), and requires no sacrifice. The sacrifice is replaced by potential unavoidable hardship (sacrifice infers a choice).

Prevention requires the forceful and deliberate oppression of fellow humans (namely in dictating how they may and may not use resource and/or procreate).

Adaptation requires only that nature takes its course and the 'fittest' will adapt successfully.

IMO, the resistance to prevention is a result of the historical abuse of the authority we would need to delegate to acheive it. Given the dynamic that authority tends to be co-opted by elitists to choose the winners and losers in an unnatural manner, many are hesitant to give that authority further power with such potentially 'hard times' looming on the horizon, and prefer to maintain the freedom they may need for the best chance to make themselves a 'winner' in these hard times as opposed to being arbitrarily or even biasly chosen as a 'loser' with no recourse.

In short, many people trust their welfare to their own abilities and to natural selection more than they trust it human leadership, and given the history of human leadership, I don't see that as an unreasonable position.

 

3 million years ago Earth had the same amount of CO2 and less ice and higher sea levels. This was long before SUV's and MILFS.

 

[QUOTE="ARDY, ]i have seen climate change skeptics debate even the obvious reality of sea level rise... [/QUOTE]

Allow me to introduce you to another person who doesn't believe in sea level rise. I'm pushIng 50 and have lived on the coast my whole life, and have observed no change. In addition businesses are still writing loans and insurance policies on coastal properties. The whole concept is bunk.

 

Sounds like one big Pascal's Wager Fallacy based argument to me...

 

The earth's climate goes through repeated change in a cycle. Whether man has sped up the latest warming up period is open to debate. The climate doesn't change like a light switch, it's a gradual process. Some 40 years ago, it used to snow 6" deep a few times in November in the UK. Snow is now quite rare and how have I adjusted? I don't have to clear the driveway and path.

No doubt it'll be different in the next 40 years. I won't be here but I'm sure my two boys will update this post on how it's changed again. Will we run out of water? Doubt it, it has to rain somewhere, plus, extracting clean water from the sea will increase and become easier with technology.

 

Yeah. I will also be gone. And yeah there are differential impacts. Climate wise, uk will likely be more Mild. I suppose that sea level rise might become a problem at some point. But lets agree that uk will likely be mostly ok.

So lets assume that is true. But it also seems likely that not all places will be so fortunate. Would you be ok knowing that you are fine, but that you carelessly contributed to climate disasters elsewhere?

 

We're all dead in six years if it is true. So says, Cortex.

 

Yes we will tax people until the carbon goes away.

What's your plan for the other 86% of carbon production in foreign countries.

 

They have and still do...even right here on this forum.

 

The UK reckon they will need to spend £1bn per year on flood defences and some will have to consider abandoning their properties and move to higher ground.

I'm not contributing to diasters, the climate changes, rain happens, snow happens, winds happen and the sun happens; always has, always will. Scientists may have brainwashed many into this man made climate malarky but count me out.

I'm sure the pro climate brigade are not using things that contribute to this hoax?

 

Climate change is definitely resulting in rising sea levels.,., which will be a disaster for many people
.... you can argue that the co2 that you put into the air makes no difference, you can argue that your opposition to addressing rising co2 makes no difference.... you may be right, you may be wrong. If yo7 are wrong, you will, in fact, have contributed various disasters around the world

Fwiw.,. The science of climate change is mostly not involved in speculation about the impacts of climate change. So what is it that you dispute.... do you dispute that co2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we can study the physical characteristics of co2, or that we can do the math associated with increasing co2, or do you dispute that all of this has been known for over a hundred years....

Or, on the other hand perhaps you dispute that if the climate significantly warms (for what ever reason) that we would expect such a warming To have a significant impact on the earths habitability for humans. Suppose the earth warms 20c. Are you arguing this would not impact humanity?

You have not demonstrated this is a chinese hoax

 

You guys concocted it, I don't have to demonstrate or dispute anything. If you wish to believe it, that's your prerogative. I just carry on with my life, I don't think, "Oo, I might not do this because it will release some co2".

Cement production causes environmental impact. Do you avoid walking on concrete and avoiding brick walls? Tarmac contains tar. What do you suggest you drive on in your electric vehicle that has no welding because fumes from welding creates an environmental problem? Are you using a phone and/or a computer that contains plastic? So on and so on.

So if you wish to preach to people on how to live environmentally, is it wise for you to be at the standard you're pushing onto others? Just a thought.

 

I have not seen any examples yet.

 

If you call someone a pedophile... we would expect evidence
If you call something a hoax, we expect evidence

By the way, people make mistakes all the time... without it being a hoax
But if you make a mistake... you think you are right even though you are wrong
A hoax is knowingly promoting a wrong information
If you are saying that all these scientists are getting together and knowingly deceiving us... that is a claim that requires evidence

Yes it does cause environmental impact... that impact should be better highlighted. Perhaps there is a better alternative we should look forward

Tar has carbon in it... that stays in it

You seem to be unaware that carbon itself is not the problem.... things like plastic are not inherently a problem

 

No harm in expecting, just means you're inspecting incorrectly.

 

Could be.... but that does not make me guilty of perpetrating a hoax, does it?

I think that you are wrong.... but if you are wrong, that does not make you a fraud does it?

It is a very important distinction. If someone is wrong, the evidence can be meaningfully discussed. If someone is perpetuating a hoax, there is no point in discussing evidence because the goal of a hoax has nothing to do with truth

And if someone falsely alleges a hoax.... they essentially preclude the discussion since the are alleging bad faith

 

But nonnie...
could you please clarify whether you disagree that about the greenhouse nature of co2?
Or do you disagree that this physical characteristic can be scientifically measured.
Or do you disagree that we can measure increases in co2 in the atmosphere?
Or do you disagree that we can therefore calculate the approximate warming influence of that added co2?
Or, if you don't disagree about any of those things... why do you call climate change concerns a hoax