Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by excalibur26, Feb 9, 2020.

Tags:
  1. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No its called a strawman instead of dealing with my actual argument you tried to fabricate one I never made. Try again Cubed.

    Your quotes I've already listed don't support your new revised claims Cubed.

    LOL So you are claiming now you support taxing people on a problem you now claim you can't prove humans are the cause of or can change. Except that's exactly what you argued when you said the tax would go towards combating climate change not pollution.

    Oh this dance keeps getting better and better.

    Sorry sport your quotes don't show any examples of that. What you do say is that you believe in climate change and believe in a tax to combat it. The pollution argument as I have said time and time again to you and multiple people is the way to go. But you never mention that in your posts. It was all about combating climate change which is why you cannot wiggle your way out of your quotes now with a new "revised" argument you never made in any of the quotes I posted of you on the subject.

    Using tax dollars to do it when you have no proof anything we do will effect the climate. You can't have it both ways my little friend.

    So you are the only one I'm debating on this subject? Talk about myopic.

    My argument hasn't changed in any of the posts on this subject. There is no evidence humans are the primary source of climate change and unlike you and those who support taxes to combat it with no evidence anything you propose will make a dent in climate.

    Oh absolutely. It all boils down to the science. Or lack thereof in your case :)

    See I'm not willing to tax people based on a belief that the money for that tax can change the climate and you've made it clear in your posts that's exactly what you believe.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
    SiNNiK likes this.
  2. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So explain to me how all the other studies that you never read are just "random numbers" while this one study that you like, that you also never read isn't "random numbers"?
     
    BestViewedWithCable likes this.
  3. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its hard to put any faith in the "numbers" when they are constantly being manipulated to show what they want to show rather then just showing the facts
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's hard to accept the conclusions of a study when you don't agree with the policy implications from those studies.

    DENYING PROBLEMS WHEN WE DON’T LIKE THE SOLUTIONS
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  5. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I've never once commented on the validity of your position, but simply boiled down the 3 options that the world has, WRT to acceptance (or non acceptance) of climate change.

    Yes they do. Where in any of those quotes do I say that humans are 100% responsible for the current climate change situation?

    I said I can't prove we are or aren't the cause of it. But I do believe we can positively affect our climate by reducing our use of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels.

    Yes. I believe that the climate is changing, for the negative, and that we should do what we can to help mitigate (or even reverse it over time, if possible) the issue.

    Also, pollution is part of climate change. Simply using Climate Change as an overarching term rather then having to list the thousands of individual components of it is a waste of time. WE should always be reducing pollution (like greenhouse gases), removing plastic from the oceans, enforce water regulations on all areas of our particular countries jurisdictions, find ways to reduce methane emissions from cows, increase usage of green technologies, etc..etc..etc...

    We do have proof that we can affect the climate. The reduction of the hole in the ozone layer through the banning of CFCs is proof positive of that. Plus, realistically, nobody with half a brain can dispute that a cleaner environment is the only way that we (as humans) can affect any level of climate change, because the only way we could affect it negatively is to pollute our environment.

    There is a lot of evidence that taxing negative externalities reduce usage.

    https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Externalities.html

    https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/tax-negative-externality/

    The issue is not whether a carbon tax is effective or not (because it is), but at what 'Level' it becomes effective. In Canada, the Liberal Govt paper found that the Tax would have to be about 300$ per tonne to effectively reduce carbon emissions to get us to our climate targets

    https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...-tax-by-2050-required-to-meet-climate-targets

    Which is why I don't promote a carbon tax as a way to reduce emission in any significant way due to the high cost necessary to really affect change, I prefer to look at a carbon tax as an investment fund for green technologies advancement, which does and will continue to improve GHG reductions.

    Energy Efficiency Alberta was created by my provinces NDP Govt back in 2015 and generated 3$ of economic activity for every 1$ invested (injecting about 850million back into the economy over a two year period), adn in the process reduced emissions by 5.7mT (though, a bit of a drop in the bucket compared to my provinces overall GHG generation)

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-energy-efficiency-alberta-1.5242185

    I believe that we could overhaul our climate in a positive manner, if we were willing to destroy most economies and cause a lot of death and destruction in the process. So that's not really a viable method.

    Which means more incremental change, along with massive investment in research and development of green friendly energy storage/battery technologies (graphene instead of nickle/cadmium), investment into nuclear plants with new kinds of reactors like Thorium Based ones, new green friendly plastics and green building construction materials.

    There are thousands, if not millions of different ways we can improve the environment that won't destroy economies, even respected canadian economist Trevor Toombe has shown this in Alberta
    [​IMG]

    Finally: Just because one can't prove with 100% certainty that humans caused our current climate change situation, doesn't mean we can't do our part to try and mitigate it with improving our environment. Even if it doesn't stop the overall issues that our planet is dealing with, it will help on lower levels with cleaner air and water and land, which all contribute to healthier individuals, who then positively contribute to the growth of the economy.

    It's like sick days. Do you try and push every bit of productivity out of your employees by forcing them to work sick, thereby infecting their coworkers and thus reducing overall productivity? or do allow them a day off so that they can return healthier and happier and more productive?
     
  6. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no im actually talking about changing the numbers to fit your narrative..

    [​IMG]

    Is the 1930s high temperatures ruining your upward trend? simple just raise the current levels and lower the 30s.. problem solved!

    Well Mr Legal what would you call something like that? would you advise your clients to do the same thing with say investment numbers?
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  7. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are investment clients looking at data from 1930? Also, why is the 1930s from the United States really relevant to the global climate change of the last half century?
     
  8. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nice dodge. the relevant part is the fraudulent changing of the numbers to support a narrative. If they are willing to commit fraud and change past numbers in the US temperature charts. Are you really going to put any faith in any numbers and charts they put forth?

     
  9. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never use a youtube video or a blog to explain a conspiracy theory.

    And yes, I am going to continue trusting the data published by NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSA, Berkeley, and every other recognized group of national or international organizations which releases data upon which trillions of dollars worth of economic decisions get made every single day.
     
  10. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted the NASA temperature charts.. you seemed confused by them so I thought maybe a video would be easier to help you out and explain how being fraudulent with numbers is BAD.

    Wait where you a Lawyer for Enron? (Might explain why you dont have a problem with fraudulent numbers)
     
  11. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you bother to review the explanation from NASA for that adjustment?
     
  12. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When it dries it becomes arable land. Why do you folks oppose longer growing seasons, more arable land over time, and less fossil fuels spent on heating? If or when Siberia and most of Canada become livable they could feed the world multiple times over on the unused land that is there...
     
  13. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know the reason they changed the numbers. They needed an upward trend
     
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ... and my response to that graphic is the following:

    [1] Thousands of locations is not nearly enough locations. Also, those locations MUST be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer to eliminate location and time biases. In any Statistical Summary, certain rules must be followed. Data MUST be raw data (cooked data is not allowed). Biases MUST be eliminated. Data MUST be selected by randN and normalized by paired randR. A variance MUST be declared and justified, and a margin of error MUST be calculated from that variance. NONE of these rules of Statistical Mathematics are being followed. IF it were possible to uniformly space and simultaneously read all the thermometers, we would need well upwards of 200 million thermometers (and this is only speaking of the surface itself (including over water), not including the sections of Earth that are rising into the atmosphere, nor lowering underground).

    [2] Define "usual temperature that day". Over what time period? Why is that time period considered "holy" as opposed to any other time period. What about the time periods during which we have no damn clue what temperatures were? Can we simply dismiss those time periods as if they never occurred when determining what the "usual temperature that day" is? Basing a calculation off of an assumption is only going to yield another assumption. Meaningless. Anomalies of assumptions are also just as meaningless as the assumptions themselves. With only thousands of thermometers, there is SO MUCH of the Earth and its atmosphere that you are not even considering. This is huge, considering that temperatures can easily vary by as much as 20degF per mile and have been known to vary by as much as 49degF per two minutes.

    [3] Repeating flawed steps doesn't fix the flaws.

    [4] Why 2,592 squares? And it doesn't matter how many anomalies you make claim to, it's all just anomalies of assumptions. What you have is almost a million assumptions. Whoopity doo.

    [5] Averaging out anomalies of assumptions simply yields more assumptions. Meaningless. Made up numbers are not data.
     
  15. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't like that study either. It contains the same "random numbers".
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    all of this is "nuh uh" as an argument. Not that I expected any different from you. It's all you have. You've been challenged, REPEATEDLY, to provide just one single piece of scientific evidence in response to what you are given, and you fail every time.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  17. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So how is this fraud and sloppiness getting through peer review?
     
  18. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are there any studies you like or do complicated looking numbers just turn you off?
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  19. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the peer review is a very flawed system. Fraud happens all the time in peer review.

    there is over 5000 examples of scientists having to retract fraudulent papers that have gotten through the peer review process that is tracked here..

    https://retractionwatch.com/
     
  20. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you believe that the Earth is warming?
     
  21. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do I believe the earth is warming? Sure, we are coming out of an ice age so regardless of the industrial revolution the earth would still be warming.. and thank god it is! there is 3.5 billion years of evidence that proves that a warmer planet is better for life. (and Ice ages are the real doomsday scenario)
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  22. SiNNiK

    SiNNiK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    4,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not merely incorrect or wrong, but fraudulent?

    5,000?

    Damn.
     
  23. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its actually much worse then that. The 2 guys running the site started it in 2010 and very rarely go back before that and look into papers because they are so back logged. they also mostly focus in the medical field because that is what their expertise is. So expanding it into other sciences and going back before 2010 would be even worse.

    Bottom line is its not hard to get past the "peer review"
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  24. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you believe the rate of warming over the last 100 years is any different than the previous 10,000?
     
  25. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You publish your post, some smart people look at it and thank you for it, certainly there could be some brown nosing bias in that process. Years later someone stumbles across your post, when searching for something they are working on, and finds you were wrong maybe in all sorts of ways. It doesn't mean peer review didn't work, it just means the right peer has to see it, which means you have to post first.

    Like pressure or friction in ice skating, sometimes it takes time for the right person to ask, "really, does it work that way?" https://spainsnews.com/the-mystery-of-ice-skating/

    The problem most likely is related to who can read stuff, like some message boards limit outside peer review or have dungeons only members can see. Some bright bulb in college might see something the so-called "peer" did not see, if he has to pay to see the papers he might rather take his girl out to lunch.
     

Share This Page