by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
I will call you naive though: " even if the international scientific consensus is wrong. There is no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside." You fail to grasp basic economics which of course have profound effects on the environment. But you knew that right?
thats better - a real point - now why couldn't your first post have been more substantive?
please expand your thought - I'm not getting your point....
Are you the self imposed moderator of this post or simply the "loudest drunk in the Bar"?
ad hominem and false dichotomy - good start.
You didn't even start this post.
not sure what your point is.
What, no date?
I'm going to guess that you are referring to me quoting post timestamps.
Just for clarity, at 18:41 (today) I posted:
What is the difference between "global warming" and "climate change?""Global warming" refers to the increase of the Earth's average surface temperature, due to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change" is a broader term that refers to long-term changes in climate, including average temperature and precipitation.
At 19:39 (today) you posted:
I kinda chuckle at the increasingly popular use of "climate change". So now it's climate change eh? What happened to just Global Warming?
You are asking a question that I just answered and I make that 57 minutes after my post, which indicates to me that you had not read with comprehension my post describing the difference between the two terms. You subsequently claimed:
The above posts you cite were written while I was writing my post.
Hence my polite enquiry as to whether it took you 57 minutes between starting your post and hitting 'submit', or the other conclusion is that you didn't read my post, almost immediately above your first comment, which is sloppy posting if so.
Oh, BTW regarding: "two posts above your own to answer your own question" There was no "question" to be answered. If you read a little more carefully, but down the shot glass and pause from your teenage antics you'd probably recognize that the only hint of a question was a rhetorical one. Try again, but slower this time.
Ignoring more ad hominem, you used a few question marks and granted you may have known these were rhetorical but we your audience didn't. My apologies.
Thank you for endorsing my point - a real point too!
I wasn't endorsiing your point - just acknowledging the beginnings of a point
My read of the context of your "right thing" is to employ rather large measures on "a governmental, national and international scale" to reduce CO2 emissions. (measures like Kyoto of course comes to mind, but feel free to enlighten)
In principle I'm not opposed to climate treaties but I fear their chances of achieving their aims are slim. India and China kept their distance from Kyoto and America didn't ratify. Getting an agreement on paper was a significant challenge - compliance would be an endless fruitless task.
The measures I refer to would be for developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity. Where America et al lead, the rest will follow. A truly green America is worth Kyoto x 50.
If you'd like some homework to see why this is naive then perhaps you can research the relationship between economic effects of such proposed measures along with prosperity and its effects on the environment in developed and developing nations.
The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion was that 1% of GDP invested now could be worth up to 20% GDP in the future. 700 pages - the most comprehensive and widely known economic report on climate change to date.
The draft report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, a similar study conducted in Australia in 2008 by Ross Garnautbroadly endorsed the approach undertaken by Stern, but concluded, in the light of new information, that Stern had underestimated the severity of the problem and the extent of the cuts in emissions that were required to avoid dangerous climate change. - source Wikipedia
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-will-probably-beat-us-garnaut-20080605-2m8l.html
"Loudest drunk in the bar, put down the shot glass, easy on the ale"
You are bordering on being in breach of Rule 1.
Besty:
Are you the self imposed moderator of this post or simply the "loudest drunk in the Bar"?
ad hominem and false dichotomy - good start.
Wow, did you find a website of logical fallacies? Good boy..... but sorry to break this to you, a logical fallacy requires an argument to either forward or rebut. Take it slower....slower... and see that there was no argument presented by either you or me. What you really meant to say is "that was sarcastic and insulting".
Perhaps you are just not satisfied with the simplicity of my observation. Namely, the naivity of "no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside." At minimum a sweeping statement and I would add terribly naive as well.
In what appears to be an ad hoc (different from ad hominem) attempt to buttress your claim you cite the "2006 Stern report". You then immediately qualify this evidence with criticisms and inaccuracies noted by Garnaut. So I'm left guessing exactly what you are trying to say. I'll refrain from suggesting that you have adopted a cause that you attempt to defend with tit-for-tat exchange of quotes by supposed experts. I will in NO WAY imply that this is eerily reminiscent of a JW armed with a 'Reasoning' book.
Let's try to inject a little common sense into your claim though. If there were "no downside", which you've framed in terms of GDP, then the transition from theoretical to actual should be relatively painless if not advantageous. As you initially state (and then quickly temper) Kyoto would cost of only 1% of GDP and would yield a net benefit of 19% GDP - an attractive ratio indeed. Yet if we simply look at the progress of major Kyoto signatories we see how terribly flawed this notion is. A 1% cost of GDP is laughable - ridiculous. Perhaps you can explain your cost/benefit theories to post Kyoto Canada, EU, New Zealand, Japan or Russia. Be sure to take your laptop so you can show them what you read on Wikipedia. I predict major signatories will continue to fail to meet their commitments for one simple reason - COST.
You see Besty, the reality of your claim is, in a word, naive when confronted with real world. Perhaps in your next post you can inform the board what the cost of Kyoto purchases in terms of temperature reduction? That would add a wonderful context to your pie in the sky economics of no downside, significant upside, sugar plum fairies and rainbows.
You asked what large scale measures I had in mind, and you suggested perhaps I meant Kyoto but asked for clarification.
I responded with clarification:
In principle I'm not opposed to climate treaties but I fear their chances of achieving their aims are slim. India and China kept their distance from Kyoto and America didn't ratify. Getting an agreement on paper was a significant challenge - compliance would be an endless fruitless task.
The measures I refer to would be for developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity. Where America et al lead, the rest will follow. A truly green America is worth Kyoto x 50.
Note that you raised Kyoto and I responded as above. Is it unclear that I see major inherent problems in multi-national climate treaties?
Notwithstanding my clarification you then attempt a lengthy rebuttal of a position I don't hold, namely that climate treaties are a panacea. Let me try and find one fact in your lengthy discussion on the problems with Kyoto, as you see them.
Perhaps you are just not satisfied with the simplicity of my observation. Namely, the naivity of " no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside." At minimum a sweeping statement and I would add terribly naive as well.
In what appears to be an ad hoc (different from ad hominem) attempt to buttress your claim you cite the "2006 Stern report". You then immediately qualify this evidence with criticisms and inaccuracies noted by Garnaut. So I'm left guessing exactly what you are trying to say. I'll refrain from suggesting that you have adopted a cause that you attempt to defend with tit-for-tat exchange of quotes by supposed experts. I will in NO WAY imply that this is eerily reminiscent of a JW armed with a 'Reasoning' book.
Let's try to inject a little common sense into your claim though. If there were "no downside", which you've framed in terms of GDP, then the transition from theoretical to actual should be relatively painless if not advantageous. As you initially state (and then quickly temper) Kyoto would cost of only 1% of GDP and would yield a net benefit of 19% GDP - an attractive ratio indeed. Yet if we simply look at the progress of major Kyoto signatories we see how terribly flawed this notion is. A 1% cost of GDP is laughable - ridiculous. Perhaps you can explain your cost/benefit theories to post Kyoto Canada, EU, New Zealand, Japan or Russia. Be sure to take your laptop so you can show them what you read on Wikipedia. I predict major signatories will continue to fail to meet their commitments for one simple reason - COST.
Oh dear - absolutely nothing resembling a fact in here that advances the discussion - just criticism of a position that I don't hold, which you are now asking me to further justify. I noted (not stated) the major conclusion of The Stern Report and I also noted that a subsequent study by Garnault fundamentally verified the Stern approach, in fact claiming that Stern had underestimated the scale of the remedy required. It is above my pay grade to suggest the economic and environmental implications on developed and developing countries ie the whole world :-) (why use 2 words when 5 will do)
Hmmmm...at the risk of triggering your logical fallacy alarm bells I'd suggest 'strawman' :-) It seems that Kyoto-debunking (sans facts) is your strong suit. When all you have is a hammer I guess everything looks like a nail...
I have made my position clear. America etc need to take a leadership position
Where exactly do you stand on this issue?
You're being baited and trolled, Free.
@MegaDude
It all comes down to truth. How badly do you want to know it?
Incidentally, plenty people on this board have met me in person and will vouch that I'm not a troll - I don't make a secret of my real identity, but I understand the reasons for those that do.
Difficult to see how I could be accused of baiting Freewilly given that he joined the thread after I did.
You are kinda handy with your accusations though - must be a pleasure to be your friend.
Ooo my goodness! 'Baiting Freewilly' sounds bloody painful!
I suggest you stop......immeadiately!! ( )
Sorry! I couldn't resist!
S'pose I've ruined my credibility as a serious 'commentator' now!
The point is that we are not climate experts making our opinions equally (in)valid.
Having said that I believe there to be three basic concepts that everybody can grasp:
1 - The carbon cycle
2 - The greenhouse effect
3 - The scientific consensus on anthropogenic change
The first two points are matters of fact. The third is slightly more contentious, but only slightly. The problem is that most people don’t believe that such a consensus actually exists. In April 2007, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 40 percent of Americans believe that “most” scientists agree that “global warming is happening.”
On the other hand, 56 percent believe there is “a lot of disagreement.”
The question isn’t asking whether scientists agree or disagree about anthropogenic climate change; the question asks whether or not they think warming is happening.
According to the IPCC, the fact that the earth is warming is “unequivocal.” ie consensus exists. The disconnect therefore appears to me to be one of public perception. When over half of Americans think the scientists are in disagreement their belief in the reality of climate change is bound to be skewed.
I wonder if anyone ever thinks they will change people's minds with their arguments....very rare in my experience............ask my wife....he he
Besty - I thought you said earlier that you were in agreement with Churchill who said that a five minute chat with the average voter was the best reason against democracy.
Suddenly you're quoting the poll opinions of American public
Given we all agree that half the population is below average intelligence I don't see a problem quoting a survey showing that more than half the American population don't 'get' that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. (without changing the subject I'd love to see a similar poll carried out for their views on creationism, betcha there's a match)
What will happen will happen.
Sounds like you have given up.
I wonder if anyone ever thinks they will change people's minds with their arguments....very rare in my experience............ask my wife....he he
Over 1,000 people have looked at this thread - the open minds can decide for themselves, the closed minds have decided in advance.
Lively robust discussion threads on JWD contributed to helping me and my family out of JW'ism - perhaps this thread might help some get a fresh outlook on climate change.
