Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
Because the majority said so.
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Try "Science by Oligarchy".
The point to the vote wasn't to establish the science. It was to provide an argument to politicians that this issue is real. Poltiicians don't understand science so the argument they use is political.
A senator may well want to argue that the science is wrong. It's a lot harder to argue that democracy is also wrong.
Of course we don't like this. Slashdotters like science. Many of us are scientists. This is a terrible way of carrying on, but the important issue is we deal with the environment. If we need to back up our scientific argument with a political one, so be it.
This process does allow senators to go on record with their specific belief positions about climate change.. the details there are interesting.
Is it a hoax? I'm on tenterhooks.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Its just as well that we don't live in a democracy
Consensus isn't science, but it's a method of determining which of the competing scientific theories should be used as a basis of policy. It may not be a good method, but other methods are worse.
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
Debate on scientific endeavors does work, because the primary purpose of congress is to fund various programs. Climate change debate in the political realm is all about transferring wealth from other productive areas of the economy. For arguments sake I'll agree there is climate change, and I'll agree to pay a few hundred million of our tax dollars for it, but no more. If you want to spent billions - well then, you've just discovered where the real debate is, and why this is going on in congress. I don't think it's as important as you think it is in dollar terms.
We can also argue about what's causing it, but at the end of the day it's about how many resources get allocated to doing something about it. Some of us think it's a fake issue to reallocate dollars into pet projects. It has happened before. What if we spend the billions and the next 10 years are the coldest on record? Will we get our money back or will we have to fund a new project to deal with global cooling?
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision. Now it seems we live in a Yakov Smirnoff joke were we make the decision and then vote on the facts. Except it is not Soviet Russia...
its called political posturing. Instead of actually doing things congress should be doing, like working down the debt, they sit here with a yes or no vote on whether they believe in X. I see a huge problem with it because it does absolutely nothing other than give ammo to congresscritters to say "see, he voted against it look at that idiot!!"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...science relies on evidence and is not swayed by what I, arbitrary authorities or consensus believes. But this goes both ways:
Now I'm not familiar with the US vote. It does seem reasonable, as policy makers and legislators are going to have to respond to climate change in their legislation, that they decide whether they buy the arguments for it or not. And given that the US uses a democratic framework for legislating it doesn't seem unreasonable that the legislature uses a democratic vote to take such an opinion collectively.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away. But it's not an authority - you can't demand congress address climate change just because the men in white coats say so - you have to address evidence based, logically sound arguments to them. And your opponents can respond with arguments of their own. And the adjudicator has to choose between them.
If you think that no one has the right to challenge the sanctity of the holy scientific truth then you're just as bad as the politician who thinks they can vote objective reality away.
So this vote may be stupid (or it may not be), but, inherently speaking, a group voting on how to collectively respond to some argument isn't necessarily.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid.
You think this vote had anything to do with science? This is about power and policy. It's about pandering to a group of voters. It's about setting a stage for the next election. It's about getting votes. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power.
Science should inform public policy but nothing forces politicians to actually care what scientists tell them if the facts diverge from political needs. If a politician needs to proclaim that gravity is a hoax to get votes then they will do that and do it with a straight face.
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
I realize you are just grinding a hatchet here; but 'scientific consensus' differs from 'democracy' in the minor detail that 'experiments' and 'data' are involved.
In the short to medium term it can (and has) been the case that scientific consensus is following some mixture of confusion and groupthink into error(or, as some suspect the more theoretical aspects of physics of doing, into an unverifiable morass of elegant but meaningless mathematics); long term, though, it's hard to both ignore the world and generate useful results.
Democracy is a human construct, i.e. consensus of the majority, while science reflects how nature behaves. Good luck imposing man's will on nature.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate. What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
That's the failing of the submitter. Nobody ever said this vote was part of the science, so there is no reason argue it isn't. But alas, many idiots will anyhow.
I can't help but think that if the Senate voted affirmatively that climate change was real, then everyone would applaud them and the article would not have been posted. Like a lot of things, what seems to work and not work is very situational, based on whose ox is getting gored. That said, while it should not be particularly relative what a legislative body thinks of a scientific issue -- after all, scientists aren't voting on whether or not the Senate is deeply, hideously, irrevocably corrupt, stupid, and incompetent -- a political stunt like that sets the tone for a lot of people who are just looking to have their particular bias confirmed -- "Oh, hey, look what the Senate said...normally while I hate government, I'll put that aside for a second and be glad they agree with me! Murka, hell YEAH!" Overall, the fact that this vote took place shows just how badly science, along with everything else in this country, has become politicized. The political debate should be a non-starter, and efforts to reduce carbon emissions should simply be a policy like not dumping barrels of plutonium into the sea or letting rivers catch on fire.
Clickbait comes to my mind too. It is just a rider on the bill for political posturing. Headline makes it out to be something it's not.
Reminds me of the time a state tried to vote to redefine PI though.
....the defining characteristic to the US political discourse. It is incredible that they would waste taxpayer dollars and time on something just to appease the religious nuts. This is just a way to force and create the illusion of religious persecution (when if anything it is the opposite) when all it is is people discovering the truths of our existence through factual and verifiable evidence, something religion consistently fails to demonstrate. Fundamentally though, religion is meant to be a belief. When the so called facts (like 6 day world creation) of religious ideas whatever belief system they may be are challenged, the religious types get irritable. Christian politicians start these idiotic votes to outlaw the facts, islamic fundamentalists kill people, jews use their media influence to hide the truths that conflict with their ideas. And before the people come out saying this is anti-semetic, check it. That is exactly how it works. Religion has the nice BITE method (google it) to attack anyone that questions it's ideas (I speak of all belief systems as an institution).
The theory of stupid. Where people who dismiss the plain truth in order to perpetuate their own ideas. It's as ridiculous as believing in superman...actually more so as one could actually prove superman exists more than they can using the religious method of proving things (Metropolis, Illinois, statue of superman there, probably even a clark kent in said city as well).
Our Senate (I dare say our whole political system in the US) has gone full retard.
This is clearly the wrong approach, they should simply make it illegal. Make everyone worry for the safety of their children (spontaneous combustion!) and explain that climate change is clearly a form of terrorism thus it is super-über-illegal. That should do it.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question? When the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification. Policy based on any other standard, like a consensus of dubious objectivity, is a crap shoot.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
In science nothing ever gets 'fully resolved'. It's not religion where babies burn in hell, then go to limbo to get more believers then they go to heaven to get even more believers. It's driven by understanding and improving that understanding.
The point of "this is perfect and certainly true" does not exist.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Clearly it's a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch can decide reality, like the judge ruling that deepwater horizon spilled 3.19 million barrels of oil.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
How does one determine when the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification ?
By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax
Personally, when "the senate just voted" is linked to something in the summary, I would expect the link to tell me more about the outcome.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Ok, the observable evidence over the past decade suggests that at the least the impact of the prevailing theory is highly overstated, and potentially flat out wrong.
Now what?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
This is not rocket surgery.
DO:
Put your shoes on before going outside.
DO NOT:
Greet your neighbors with a tennis racket to the genitals.
DO:
Post the summary of the article in the summary.
DO NOT:
Post worthless clickbait in the summary.
Please grasp the concept.
here's a link: http://www.partel.ie/blog/?p=3... there are other effects from CO2 then climate changed. Decreased cognition was detected at 1000ppm. its a problem in air conditioned buildings with high recycle. At some increasing levels needs to be addressed.
Science by democracy isn't science.
The data from the last decade fits the rising trend perfectly.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
It never ceases to amaze me that peopel make the argument that somehow the profits to be made from promoting a "global warming agenda" eclipse the profits and therefore dominate the national interests of the fossil fuel industry. It's so ludicrous that nobody of sound mind should should be saying it, yet there it is for all of the Glenn Beck crowd to hear.
The problem there is 'policy' not 'science'.
I like the IETF model: "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code".
Oh, but nothing large-scale and important could ever be accomplished without Democracy ...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Very little is ever fully resolved.
Plus we already set public policy based upon religion, which is never ever resolved, and never will be.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Newtonian physics have been disproven, yet it has been used as a basis for laws regarding houses, roads and bridges.
Should those regulations be revoked?
I take it you are not yet persuaded by the science against smoking cigarettes?
Please mod parent -1 disagree.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Ok, the observable evidence over the past decade suggests that at the least the impact of the prevailing theory is highly overstated, and potentially flat out wrong. Now what?
First off, you need to accept that you have bad data.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Republican Congress will do anything (even take a meaningless vote like this one) to show their largest campaign donors that they love and support them. Keep the money coming and we'll let you feel even better about damaging the environment for whatever reasons you tell us to state. .
Democracy is counting skulls instead of brains. - Cant remember :)
Democracy by science also doesn't work. Remember the "scientific basis" behind the eugenics movement, which even after WW2 was used to justify forced sterilization of those deemed mentally retarded? Or the "scientific basis" for blacks being inferior? Or the "scientific basis" for "curing" gays and lesbians? Or the "scientific basis" for trains not being able to travel more than 20 mph because the passengers would have all the air sucked out of their lungs at that terrifying speed? I'm sure that with a bit of thought you can come up with more.
Science and democracy are orthogonal.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax
Especially since (1) he doesn't tell us the result of the vote, and (2) he links back to yesterday's article on slashdot that covered the same thing, and to the same article on his web site as yesterday. Nothing - nothing - whatsoever to see here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's akin to say that until we have all the results from all supporting structures in a crumbling building, we shouldn't start to evacuate.
Consensus isn't science, but it's a method of determining which of the competing scientific theories should be used as a basis of policy. It may not be a good method, but other methods are worse.
Hmmmm ...
And how is 'Concensus' among the Scientists any different than a Vote among the members of the Legislature ?
Just wondering ...
-- kjh
You're right. We should use quantum mechanics instead as a basis for laws regarding houses, roads and bridges, because that's much more applicable to houses, roads, and bridges than Newtonian physics.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
... only scientifically challenged (read: morons) would vote on whether scientific results are true. Why don't they let SCIENTISTS vote on the issue? Oh, right, because 97% of the scientists stating the climate change is true would overrule the 3% that say it isn't ...
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
It should be named anthropogenically accelerated global climate change, as there is no question whether the climate is changing---one cannot expect that the actual climate will last forever, it has changed before and will change again. The question is whether climate change is (a) global, (b) faster than it would be natural, and therefore (c) caused by the man.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
...by democracy really doesn't work too well either.
Its the best we have, but it doesn't work, more so in a polarized society.
It may seem odd, but most people in last election voted for Democrats, who have climate change as part of their platform.
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power. source
So blaming "democracy" seems a little odd -- especially since we're a Republic.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, republicans are right.
we are not doing fine if we are talking about raising taxes on anyone.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Have voters been made aware of this ? I'm pretty sure that the average voter, who does not care for scientific journals and reports, has a poor idea of the current scientific facts and theories. And that applies to voters on both sides of the debate.
Yes, but the rising trend does not seem to lead to the predicted disasters.
When mathematicians vote on whether to accept a new theorem, when psychiatrists vote on which diseases should be included in the latest version of DSM, when NIH panels vote on whether to fund a grant. No, science couldn't possibly be run by the tyranny of the mob that refuses to believe in ideas that are too new and radical.
can anyone name any Scientific discipline that has been built on models that have been shown by empirical evidence to be wrong?
Newtonian physics?
(Since I agree that science-by-democracy is stupid)
Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."
Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?
Seriously, though: while I again agree that this vote was stupid, let's all be very clear that the response to Global Warming - whatever the cause - is entirely political.
If you have a problem, it's entirely reasonable to ask specialists about the problem, the causes and consequences. But as we don't have infinite resources to address every problem in existence, choosing WHICH problem to try to solve is not a scientist's choice, it's a political choice.
-Styopa
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Bogus. Science is not about "fully resolving" but about "models that work". Yes you could back the "wrong" scientifc theory when making policy, but in most cases they will differ only in corner cases. And even better, you can choose a response that addresses the problem, no matter which theory is correct. Even if global warming today was mainly caused by volcanoes, would it make sense to pump out even more CO2?
However, if there's a debate like there is in the US with climate change, with opinions 180 degrees the opposite, you can be sure that one side is only spouting complete bollocks and propaganda. Especially when you notice that one side has most of the scientists on its side, and the other mostly politicians.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
I'm waiting for them to fix the plague of transcendental numbers and redefine pi to be the proper, all-American value of 3.2. If we're lucky they might fix that pesky e too.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Now I understand the denial logic. Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth, we shouldn't do anything since the question is not fully resolved, right? That's just plain stupid, whether it's applied to a comet or climate change. Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
Burried by all the lovely campaign donations *COUGHBRIBESCOUGH* from lobby groups and that wonderful Citizen's United ruling.
Those laws allow for such large inaccuracies (aka safety margins) that the inaccuracies of Newtonian physics are neglegible.
Scientists are supposed to know anything about the subjects they vote on. Legislaters are not, and do not in practice.
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)
Maybe in the developing world. In the US I know CO2 emissions have dropped as natural gas has gotten cheaper, more nat gas power plants have been built, and more coal plants have been shut down.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Little known fun fact: The 500 mile race was meant to be run on a perfectly round track...
I like music
after supposedly having been tinkered the crap out of
Funny, because it's the exact same data people use to claim there has been a pause. Or do you have a source for better data ?
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
AGW and the CO2 debate has just Hypothesis generation, and the models have failed at predicting anything. And yet, you have people running around crying "2014 was the hottest year on record", and while it is fun being "Chicken Little" isn't accurate at all, and crying "consensus" (popular opinion) etc.
So far, all science has done is shown that CO2 is increasing, measured/verified.
Not to mention all the other "theories" about how weather, especially hurricanes, would increase and cause more devastation, and the cries of "Global Warming" after Sandy, which does NOTHING but drive panic (emotion, not facts) to elicit government controls on human activity. After all, only government can solve the worlds problems (never mind that governments cause most of the worlds problems).
Global warming isn't science. It is political fodder masquerading as science.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The future hasn't happened yet.
Nonsense. Our debt to GDP is over 100% and growing, and several economists opine that we are past the tipping point, meaning that any realistic scenario results in economic collapse. If interest rates were to return to historical averages, we would be paying 80% of revenues to service the debt.
That's not "climate". That's "weather".
And you are an idiot.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Sounds good. May be a challenge to get all the Congress members to do that, though.
But I keep being told that AGW is "settled" and "proven" and such. Tell that to the people who don't believe (faith type) in AGW who are told basically that they are going to hell (blamed for AGW should it occur),and how the sinners need to sacrifice (go "green", pay carbon offsets etc) while the priests get to live in luxury (Al Gore and the 1000s of jets flying to AGW conferences).
You see, if you frame it right, it does sound JUST LIKE RELIGION!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Will you watch as these imbeciles destroy the future?
--exa--
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done. If that's not enough, please explain your exact criteria. WHO must do all the things you mention, and WHEN does the general public know they have been done correctly ?
The difference is that you can duplicate the tests, measurements and models, and that you are invited to come up with alternative explanations.
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision.
What country have you been living in? The actual "facts" are very frequently irrelevant to the voting process. People vote based on what someone tells them the bible says. People vote based on racial prejudices completely unsupported by fact. People vote directly against their own self interest because they believe lies someone else told them. People vote on soundbites over deciding issues they don't even remotely comprehend. People vote in virtually every election on things where their understanding of the facts is wrong, misinformed, disingenuous, etc.
Weigh the facts? Sometimes but it's hardly the norm. Now had you said people vote on perceptions of the facts I might actually agree.
To whatever extent the senate vote was pure idiocy, IMO it still doesn't quite topple the Indiana Pi bill.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Why don't you look at the data for the past decade?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Could someone please explain how giving more money to the kleptocrats in government is going to cool the planet?
Nobody has claimed that, so no explanation is required.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away
Just because something is factually true doesn't mean our leaders can't choose to ignore it. Science can point out what a rational policy might look like but it's up to the folks we put in office to decide whether or not to actually match policy to those scientific findings.
You have just justified the mystics point of view. It is the very nature of science that nothing is ever completely resolved. It means that nothing is ever really a fact as new knowledge often displaces old knowledge. That being the case science oriented people actually act on their beliefs. They consider the state of science to represent facts which is a form of denial. It somewhat puts religion and science on equal footings. Note that considering science as a belief system is only real from a long term view. Consider what were considered facts in 1900 and how many of those facts fell apart. But humans being what they are consider Texas and what those folks can do armed with the notion that religious or pseudo religious beliefs might carry the same weight as science and you end up with lunatics who want to teach religion in science classes. And our broken system tends to give them support. Since we do not have religion classes in public schools it sort of puts pressure on the idea of shifting religion into science classes. Along with that we have a problem in that science can amplify the worst aspects of human nature. For example primitive natives may bash each other over the head at times but only modern man would drop nuclear bombs killing millions or come up with ideas like creating new, deadly, bacteria to use in war.
next the will be voting on wether there is a god or not...and a room full of idiots believing in imaginary things doesn't make them real. scary precedent.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
hoax is a deliberate attempt to mislead. calling it a hoax is absurd. it would be more appropriate for a vote on god. i.e. is christ a hoax.
the vote should be, is there sufficient evidence to accept it as highly likely to be true/valid.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Science is not the only thing that does not work by democracy, very few things actually work by democracy.
Building a better car doesn't work by democracy.
Economics doesn't work by democracy.
A wealthy and healthy society doesn't work by democracy.
An individual is smart, a mob is made of idiotic, selfish, panicky, stupid animals and that's somehow is supposed to produce better results? Ha!
You can't handle the truth.
And the answers are:
a) Yes
b) Yes
c) Yes
to a very acceptable level of accuracy.
You see, if you frame it right, it does sound JUST LIKE RELIGION!
If you frame it right, everything sounds like religion.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."
Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?
The climate scientist consensus argument is stupid if you think it is an argument to prove that global warming is occurring. That is NOT what the consensus argument is about. Instead it is an argument from authority to establish that the people who actually have seriously looked into this and have weighed the available evidence keep coming to the same conclusion.
Here's the thing. Very few individuals who claim that global warming is not real are actually well informed on the available evidence and scientific models. They are arguing based on personal desires or opinions or preconceptions but they are not arguing based on known evidence. Conversely the vast majority of scientists who are researching climate and do actually understand the currently available evidence are almost universally coming to the conclusion that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that average temperatures are increasing and that humans are most probably the proximate cause of that change.
So on one hand we have people arguing from ignorance against climate change while those on the other side of the debate who are fully informed on the topic are almost universally coming to the exact opposite conclusion. Who should you believe? Do you believe the doctor who recommends a medicine that has been shown effective in double blind studies or would you believe the guy trying to sell you a homeopathic remedy which has no supporting evidence whatsoever? When you have a consensus among fully informed scientists on a particular topic, odds are pretty good that they are correct in what they are saying. Scientists have strong incentives to be correct and their work is available (more or less) for all to see and double check. If they are wrong then it is up to those who disagree to prove it. But since those who disagree, almost universally have no actual idea what they are talking about, we have to listen to a bunch of uneducated nonsense from people who lack the good graces to shut up about things they don't understand.
If those who disagree with the consensus want to do so then all they have to do is find objective evidence of a source for the measured temperature increases other than human sources. That temperatures have gone up on average globally is not in dispute. The evidence for a cause of that warming appears to strongly point towards human activity. To disprove this thesis all someone would have to do is show how a volcano or some other natural phenomena is a better explanation for what we observe.
You do realize the policy will not be about reducing or even limiting CO2 emissions.
The large producers of CO2 will keep churning away what it will do is stop the smaller producers by raising the bar they have to meet.
Policy is like when corps get fines, take the EPA Company X gets caught illegally dumping waste they have to pay cleanup and then some fees to the EPA, in reality what they pay for this is probably far less than what it would cost them to do it properly, this scenario only takes into account they've been doing the same thing all along and only been caught the once meaning they could have dumped several hundred tons of waste and only gotten caught dumping a small percentage of that.
There are no consequences just slaps on the wrist with a finger wave and a stern "Well don't do that again".
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done.
I don't know why you think that. All climate scientists who are not in a coma (or on vacation in Aruba collecting temperature data) are aware that the models are wrong. The hypothesis is wrong and needs to be adjusted. And scientists aren't stupid, that is exactly what they are doing, thinking of different ways to adjust the hypothesis. But it takes time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
Generally the answer to this is short term economic self interest. Most of the arguments I see against stuff like curbing CO2 emissions are basically arguments for economic self interest. Economic interests often collide with scientific evidence, at least in the short run.
... when they attempted to regulate the value of Pi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth
How big is this comet? We already know Earth gets hit by comets frequently (meaning we're already 100% confident that a comet will crash on Earth). And of course, we're ignoring the unscientific exaggerations of comet impact likelihood and harm which would accompany this prediction.
Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
Where's the analysis of the relative costs and benefits of acting and not acting? Not acting has substantial benefits with respect to dealing with future global warming while acting has both substantial present day harm and not very impressive future benefits even if global warming is as bad as claimed.
This "we have to do something" impulse is also stupid. For example, you will die at some point. But if you kill yourself now, you won't die at any point in the future. It fixes the problem of dying in the future far more completely than any alternative method. Since we have to do something now, killing yourself is the obvious choice for best approach.
When a hypothesis has been made, tested and results either support or refute the hypothesis.
In terms of climate consider a single week let's say second week of December. Now measuring the temp all that week and other variables is that enough data to form a hypothesis about climate for the entire year?
Seems ridiculous but when you consider climate as a whole you have to consider the immense spans of time we are dealing with, we aren't talking a few hundred years we are talking eons.
While current data may show a warming trend we don't have data far back enough to prove it's warming due to whatever reason and not part of natural climate change.
I do realize we can measure CO2 levels etc. Even these have been significantly higher and lower throughout history.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Even still it doesn't mean we should willy nilly ignore pumping CO2 into the atmos.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
You don't let someone else drive you over a cliff just because they don't understand or care about the consequences of their actions. The electorate in general has not looked carefully at the evidence and many of them clearly do not understand it or are apparently ignoring the good of the many in favor of their own short term interests. It is VERY apparent that the electorate is not well informed on this issue and it is equally clear that short term economic self interest is very likely to result in long term harm.
It never ceases to amaze me that peopel make the argument that somehow the profits to be made from promoting a "global warming agenda" eclipse the profits and therefore dominate the national interests of the fossil fuel industry.
Why is that amazing? The numbers are huge on both sides. And given that we are seeing record profits for the oil companies at the same time that we're seeing this global warming hysteria, it reminds me that profit from each ideological approach is not mutually exclusive!
Funny, if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
It should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
That's how science works.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
In other recent news, the United States Senate recently passed legislation requiring that all government contractors use 3 as the value for pi. Asked for comment, Sen. Inhofe stated "irrational numbers are the devil's spawn, and America is a Christian nation. We use wholesome whole numbers in this country."
2 C being a bare minimum
Here is a quote from the TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario"
So it looks like we are right in line with expectations. If you are concerned about accuracy (as you imply above) then you should quote a source or double check your statements before you post.
Fuck that, we can't be trusted to pick an insurance policy that isn't substandard remember?
What makes you think the masses are any more qualified to make a decision about the climate?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
It should be named anthropogenically accelerated global climate change, as there is no question whether the climate is changing---one cannot expect that the actual climate will last forever, it has changed before and will change again. The question is whether climate change is (a) global, (b) faster than it would be natural, and therefore (c) caused by the man.
I guess, they should have named it anthropogenically inverted global climate change, then. The natural trend is about -0.03C degrees C per century, when you add in the anthropogenic impact the current trend is around +2.00 degrees C per century.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
which by most standards, means we're doing just fine.
Yay, for ISLE. Most standards are pretty lousy when it comes to publicly held debt.
You also have to consider we shifted the production of CO2 offshore by outsourcing most of our industrial production.
So while it looks good on paper "US reduces CO2 emissions" "CO2 emissions reduced in US by 70%", truth is they weren't just moved somewhere else on the planet.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Another alternative explanation is that AGW and the harm coming from it exist, but are grossly exaggerated.
Better explanations for high velocities, high gravitational fields or very small.
But science usually tends to change their beliefs based on data. If the data refutes a belief the belief is altered until there is new data.
Earth is the center of the universe new data Earth revolves around the Sun.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
That you can duplicate, but you can't duplicate a few hundred thousand years of actual measurement.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
"in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
The article oversimplifies.
The things it says are only true where scientists were ALWAYS honest, and ALWAYS pursue the data, wherever it leads.
In the real world, we have scientists who have their own agendas, who have published slanted, cherry-picked data, and helped create the situation we now have - where politicos get to decide what is "real".
I would like to believe that most scientists are honest people, but given human tendencies, I may be asking too much.
The difference is that you can duplicate the tests, measurements and models, and that you are invited to come up with alternative explanations.
You have extra Earths lying around that can be used for repeatable experiments?
Yes, scientists debate. Hopefully they do. But hopefully differently than politicians or daytime talk show trash. The difference is that politicians along with the other trash don't listen. They just spew their side and THEY ARE RIGHT AND PERIOD!
Scientists on the other hand present their findings and actually expect a rebuttal. If they are serious about science and not just trying to get some grant money. Science is about questioning. You present your theory, then I present my questions that punch hole into it, then you can patch those holes, alter your theory or fold. Or I may present a theory based on yours that describes better what we observe. And in the end, we will probably, with a bit of luck, find truth. At least for the time being, 'til someone comes and says "ahem, I found something that contradicts your theory...", and then the whole spiel starts anew.
There is no voting process in this. We don't sit there at the end, our competing theories carved into stone, unyielding and immobile, everyone convinced that he, and he alone, is right, no matter what the other side said, no matter what the other side presented, and then we simply cast a vote on who is right. That's not scientific.
That's democratic.
Science is not democratic. Just because 90% say A it needn't be true. For reference see miasma theory, aether theory, geocentrism...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate.
No that isn't policy, that's just what people do, and they could change their mind if they REALLY wanted to, without government intervention.
How big is this comet?
Big enough to kill thousands of people.
Where's the analysis of the relative costs and benefits of acting and not acting?
There have been many, including the Stern Report. But at this point this is economics/politics, not climate science. Because to answer that question, we must answer questions such as what is the "worth" of a Pacific island nation. Assuming that this worth is > 0, then we should invest a non-zero amount of dollars into avoiding/mitigating/adapting to climate change.
Not acting has substantial benefits with respect to dealing with future global warming
How so? Global warming has a positive feedback. Warming melts polar ice, which in turns means less ice reflect solar heat into space, which means more warming of the earth.
while acting has both substantial present day harm and not very impressive future benefits even if global warming is as bad as claimed.
Reports indicate that the earlier we start acting, the less costly it will be for mankind. Global warming isn't about the end of life on earth. It's about being poorer, globally. We will be poorer in 100 years if we do nothing, because warming will have a significant cost.
It's not about giving money to anyone. It's about reducing fossil fuel consumption. An effective way to achieve this is to tax fossil fuels. It doesn't matter where the money goes, it could even be burned, and it would still discourage people from buying it.
Reminds me of that pamphlet named something like "100 scientists against Einstein", and Einstein commented that it only takes one of them prove him wrong, not 100.
The thing you are missing is that "running code" is an objective goal which can be tested fairly easily.
Most policy decisions don't have such absolute and immediate feedback.
If there was a simulation that not only tested warming, but also provided accurate modelling about what exactly might be causing it, and most importantly, the outcomes of various policy decisions that could be taken to alleviate the issue, you might then be able to more closely compare an engineering task force with national and international politics.
What many AGW advocates miss in the policy debate is that they are often bundling the science with specific policy statements that are related, but not always directly required to reduce warming. So it sounds to others like they are saying:
"You all have to accept a full "progressive" slate of environmental restrictions or otherwise you are against science"
I think that the other end is responding in a knee jerk way to those comments.
I'm willing to accept that warming is something that exists and is likely affected by man. What I am not going to do is vote for the Green Party or even the Democratic Party just because of that, because they trail their own baggage and policy add-ons despite their much better position on the science of AGW.
if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
The same data has been used to claim men landed on the moon, and that the moon landing was a hoax. Therefore all data related to the moon landing should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The denialists will still come up with an alternate interpretation of cherry-picked data from some crackpot blog, to prove you wrong.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Well we are 38% certain that "2014 was the hottest year on record", it also might be Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
In his closing comment in his report on the Shuttle Challenger Accident Investigation report:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
You are projecting your religion onto science. Not the other way around.
All you have to do is look at OCO splash page banner to see that the US contribution to CO2 pales even against geologic sources.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Are you unfamiliar with carbon taxes? That is absolutely the claim!
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Big enough to kill thousands of people.
Unless, of course, it's not that big.
There have been many, including the Stern Report. But at this point this is economics/politics, not climate science. Because to answer that question, we must answer questions such as what is the "worth" of a Pacific island nation. Assuming that this worth is > 0, then we should invest a non-zero amount of dollars into avoiding/mitigating/adapting to climate change.
Economics is a place where global warming predictions are egregiously wrong.
The Stern report in question overestimates future damage from global warming due to overly low time value (of money and other things) by using an artificially low economic growth rate value in place of the actual inflation-adjusted GDP growth (or similar measures of growth of economic value). For example, the cost of harms a century in advance were overstated by a factor of two.
And other costs are notoriously overestimated. A particularly big one is the alleged cost of sea level rise (coupled with alleged increases in storm strength). The typical approach is to look at the land that is predicted to be inundated (which often is highly priced) and value the cost of global warming as the destruction of that property. This ignores that most of that property will need to be replaced well before sea level rise becomes a factor in its destruction. And if you're going to do that, then a move to higher ground is not a significant additional cost.
Well, unless society chooses to make such activities overly expensive. For example, we could greatly reduce the alleged impact of sea level rise by reforming public flood insurance in the US. Not the world, the US. It's amazing how much of the supposed evidence for global warming, such as citing increased insurance claims for flooding and other extreme weather, relies on ignoring the effects of severely broken human systems. Another such example is the conflating of droughts caused by pumping out an aquifer with droughts caused by AGW.
Similar issues are uncovered with claims of loss of arable land. This ignores the increase in arable land coming from most of the heating occurring in the upper temperate zones of the Northern hemisphere.
How so? Global warming has a positive feedback. Warming melts polar ice, which in turns means less ice reflect solar heat into space, which means more warming of the earth.
And heat radiates into space as the fourth power of temperature. There's your global warming negative feedback.
Reports indicate that the earlier we start acting, the less costly it will be for mankind. Global warming isn't about the end of life on earth. It's about being poorer, globally. We will be poorer in 100 years if we do nothing, because warming will have a significant cost.
So what? Where's the evidence to back up those reports?
I think the point is that all the ppl today saying "nothing to see here" have the same mindset as Shapley about distant galaxies: If there are other galaxies like our Milky Way, that would contradict everything we know today, reasoned astronomers a century ago. So there must not be distant galaxies. QED. Nothing to see here!
Aristarchus of Samos ran into much the same prejudice. If Aristarchus's heliocentric theory of the solar system is correct, reasoned the Greeks, we should observe parallax motion of the stars. We don't observe parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth does not move around the sun. Nothing to see here! Except their instruments weren't sensitive enough to measure the parallax motion, because the stars were so much farther away than they could imagine.
In the same way today we see huge bursts of energy that astronmers just can't stomach, so they invent theories about beaming and so forth. Nothing to see here! Energy is still scarce! We can still use scarcity as an excuse to make poor people suffer, because the stars say so.
The weak decline in the last decade does not make up for the total increase over the last 2 decades.
I've updated your URL to show the trend for the last 20 years. It shows a very different picture than the link you posted.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
*sigh* back to work...
An interesting aspect of science is that all our models are always wrong. And we are always aware of that.
Rethinking email
Big enough to kill thousands of people.
Unless, of course, it's not that big.
As I said, we suppose we are 90% confident that this will happen. The OP said that we should never act before the science is settled. So in this case, applying this logic, we shouldn't do anything and hope for that 10%.
The Stern report in question overestimates future damage from global warming due to overly low time value (of money and other things) by using an artificially low economic growth rate value in place of the actual inflation-adjusted GDP growth (or similar measures of growth of economic value). For example, the cost of harms a century in advance were overstated by a factor of two.
There are criticisms about this report. But where is the report saying that global warming is happening, but that doing nothing will end up being cheaper than acting? There is none. Politics can never be 100% evidence based. See my example about the comet. We have to act according to what is the most likely with our current knowledge. Even if global warming was a hoax. Let say we reduce our CO2 emissions by 10%. City air quality will end up being cleaner.
And heat radiates into space as the fourth power of temperature. There's your global warming negative feedback.
It's not enough. It's an equilibrium. If more ice melts, the earth temperature equilibrium shift to higher temperature. Of course radiation to space means that that positive feedback won't last forever. And anyway if all the ice melts the positive feedback will stop.
To quote the late George Carlin:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Time to offend someone
Burn heretic!
Time to offend someone
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...
After the 1984 NIH Consensus Conference on Cholesterol, one of the scientists involved stated that "if there are truly been a consensus, there would have been no need for a conference".
Still, there were large profits to be made in convincing people to use statins and to eat low-fat food. So they stacked the panel, and reached their predetermined conclusion, and with the connivance of a willing popular media, doomed millions to lives of misery, obesity, and illness.
It was, in my mind, the single greatest mistake in human history.
Because we let a government committee declare a "consensus".
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Thanks. For the record, you were calling people names like "naive mental lightweights" and ridiculing them for not being able to understand what the temperature data shows over the last decade. It appears you are the one who does not understand what the data shows.
The data also shows no statistically significant warming for about 17 years, contrary to climate models predictions. The "pause" has lasted almost as long as the ~20 year warming period that began in the mid-70's.
Pardon me, it was not you who was calling people names.
I say vegetable.
--- Mercutio was right.
If ~17 years of no warming is not significant, then it should follow that ~20 years of warming from '76 - '98 is also not significant. (Prior to that human influence was negligible according to the IPCC.) You can't have it both ways. If the warming is meaningful, then so is the pause.
Actually the data being use to claim there is a pause is the Satellite data set (RSS) which I believe has full Global coverage. The data being used to claim "hottest year ever" is (this year) the GISS Which is the interpolated data the GP mentions.
Most people trust that the climate scientists are using reasonable methods to determine the interpolation of station data but when the two data sets vary, it raises questions about which is correct.
That you, Karmashock?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Newtonian physics is not wrong. It is an approximation which is valid at most scales.
The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.
Have at it.
But wait! There's more!
Climate data online
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...
Paleoclimatology data
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.
I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
But he's pretty well been debunked now.
http://transitionculture.org/2...
The online presentation is the link you want.
Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.
http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...
The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.
Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".
And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ?
When the theory accounts for the evidence from all repeatable experiments and sufficient time has passed (typically a couple of decades) during which new experiments aggressively attempting to disprove the theory fail to turn up evidence which either contradicts the theory or requires the theory to be modified.
It's impossible to not have a policy while we wait.
We had no public policy on CO2 emissions for most of recorded history. The world has not ended.
Proposed policy on global warming is expensive. Too expensive to get a second chance if we get it wrong the first time. The smart money says: wait until the computer models become reliable enough to simulate exactly what will and won't work. God help us if we regulate CO2 and it turns out that global warming was real but carbon soot was the main problem.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
If there was a simulation that not only tested warming, but also provided accurate modelling about what exactly might be causing it, and most importantly, the outcomes of various policy decisions that could be taken to alleviate the issue, you might then be able to more closely compare an engineering task force with national and international politics.
Hear hear!
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Linking to the same article on his site 2 days in a row, over the same topic, without actually adding anything new in the second summary, is pure clickbait. The second story added absolutely nothing over and above the first.
So the second article can accurately be classified as nothing to see here (unless this is your first visit to the site, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he failed to include that the clock was advanced by 2 minutes.
Also, that wasn't the greatest debate in science. The Scopes Monkey Trial easily beat it.
We're still having schools trying to ban the teaching of evolution almost 100 years later, politicians are still involved in the debate up to their necks, and the religion vs. science debate that has gone on for centuries still continues, but this was ultimately a victory of science.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The future hasn't happened yet.
Yes. Yes it has.
/me slowly looks up at the timestamp on his post and the timestamp on itzly's post.
Okay. I am SERIOUSLY creeped out now. The CAPTCHAs here are usually relatively prescient if you think in a broad enough manner but this time, the CAPTCHA was orthant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
There are criticisms about this report. But where is the report saying that global warming is happening, but that doing nothing will end up being cheaper than acting? There is none. Politics can never be 100% evidence based. See my example about the comet. We have to act according to what is the most likely with our current knowledge. Even if global warming was a hoax. Let say we reduce our CO2 emissions by 10%. City air quality will end up being cleaner.
Unless, it has a negative effect on air quality and city air quality turns out to be worse. The big problem with global warming remedies, is that they can increase global poverty. That tends to increase not decrease pollution.
And I disagree that things like the Stern Report are more within our current knowledge than the skepticism about these reports.
It's not enough. It's an equilibrium. If more ice melts, the earth temperature equilibrium shift to higher temperature. Of course radiation to space means that that positive feedback won't last forever. And anyway if all the ice melts the positive feedback will stop.
Sure, it is. As Earth shifts to higher temperatures, the amount of heat radiated to space increases as well.
As I said, we suppose we are 90% confident that this will happen. The OP said that we should never act before the science is settled. So in this case, applying this logic, we shouldn't do anything and hope for that 10%.
I grant that the perfectionism of the original poster is a bad idea, but that's just not the problem with global warming. There's considerable uncertainty greater than 10% that the cure is better than the disease, coupled with IMHO a considerable degree of bias towards presenting an argument for strong reductions in fossil fuel consumption.
For example, there's this bizarre insistence on only considering how to keep global warming under 2 C increase.
That's not going to happen unless both the degree of global warming is less than expected and humanity has a solid replacement for fossil fuels that decisively replaces them economically. Eg, renewables so much cheaper that they not only wipe out coal plants in electricity production, but also result in considerably cheaper electric vehicles than gas-powered vehicles. I think that is unlikely even if developed world countries start putting punitive taxes on carbon emissions. The rest of the world just isn't interested aside from relatively susceptible outliers like Bangladesh or the Micronesia countries.
When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence
A question is, by the very definition of science, never fully resolvable. That right there is the difference to religious dogma.
The rest of the world just isn't interested aside from relatively susceptible outliers like Bangladesh or the Micronesia countries.
The rest of the world is interested, as long as the developped world, who contributed the most to global warming, lead the way. I think that's fair. But countries like US and Canada are so bad a reducing emissions that I understand the rest of the world don't want to do anything.
Unless, it has a negative effect on air quality and city air quality turns out to be worse. The big problem with global warming remedies, is that they can increase global poverty. That tends to increase not decrease pollution.
If we realize we were wrong it's easy to start emitting a lot of CO2 again. If we were right, and did nothing, it will be a lot more expensive.
And I disagree that things like the Stern Report are more within our current knowledge than the skepticism about these reports.
The problem is that skepticism is not as seriously documented. Most simply deny global warming is happening, or that human activity has something to do with it (which is against the scientific consensus, we are no longer talking about economics and politics here). Where are the reports acknoleging AGW is happening, but that the costs of doing nothing is lower than the cost of acting against it? I haven't seen any.
Sure, it is. As Earth shifts to higher temperatures, the amount of heat radiated to space increases as well.
With a given constant amount of CO2 emitted, do you agree that the temperature will be higher without polar ice than with polar ice? Water absorbs more heat than ice. Ice reflects more heat than ice. The fact that the hotter is the planet, the more heat radiate to space doesn't change that.
The great thing about statistics and graphs is that by carefully selecting your data you can do things like this with them.
And this article linked from yours shows just how disingenuous that approach is. Brilliant.
If we realize we were wrong it's easy to start emitting a lot of CO2 again. If we were right, and did nothing, it will be a lot more expensive.
Why would "we" ever realize we were wrong? The tiger-repelling rock worked.
The problem is that skepticism is not as seriously documented. Most simply deny global warming is happening, or that human activity has something to do with it (which is against the scientific consensus, we are no longer talking about economics and politics here). Where are the reports acknoleging AGW is happening, but that the costs of doing nothing is lower than the cost of acting against it? I haven't seen any.
Documentation != evidence. The fallacy of argument through obfuscation is just as much a fallacy as anything else.
With a given constant amount of CO2 emitted, do you agree that the temperature will be higher without polar ice than with polar ice? Water absorbs more heat than ice. Ice reflects more heat than ice. The fact that the hotter is the planet, the more heat radiate to space doesn't change that.
So what? We were speaking of positive and negative feedbacks. You pointed out a positive feedback given without context and I pointed out a negative feedback associated with the same system.
And I don't care that there is global warming. What I care about are the costs and benefits of the change.
The rest of the world is interested, as long as the developped world, who contributed the most to global warming, lead the way.
In other words, as long as somebody else does the actual work? That doesn't sound like interest to me.
No, as long as the developed world does more. And that's fair, by looking at the per-capita emissions we know who should do the most effort.
I don't see any sign of that. China, for example, is a great supporter of the developed world cutting back at China's benefit. In fact, I think this particular game boils down to the developed world committing economic suicide while China builds up for its chance at being a superpower.
In other words, if something new comes up it should be impossible to have a policy for twenty years plus the amount of time for it to be studied? And, apparently, finding new information that results in changes to the theory put it off by another twenty years? Or that experiments with odd results should put off policy decisions. Do you think this is really workable?
The world has not ended because there has been no policy on CO2 emissions. For most of recorded history, human CO2 emissions were not globally significant. We've pushed it from about 280ppm to about 400ppm in less than two centuries now, and it's having significant effects.
The current lack of policy on global warming is potentially too expensive to get a second chance. God help us if we don't regulate CO2 and it turns out that the less conservative scientists were actually right.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I looked at the splash page, and saw no such indication.
Also, the increase from 280ppm to 400ppm, with carbon isotopic ratios that show the increase is from sequestered carbon, suggests that we're doing something new.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The claim is, that by taxing sequestered CO2 emissions, we're internalizing an externality and causing the market to work more efficiently. By introducing transferable carbon credits, we allow the market to efficiently determine how to best reduce such emissions. Nobody has claimed that raising taxes per se will accomplish anything useful for the climate (note that raising taxes and spending typically stimulates the economy, causing more CO2 release).
The free market is a very powerful tool, and carbon taxes and credits are ways of letting it help reduce emissions.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And, if by the time we got the simulation you are talking about, fishing has pretty much collapsed as a food source, agriculture is way down, we're in the middle of an extinction event, sea level is up a couple of feet, etc., well, it just sucks to be us?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While no one has ever suggested that science is subject to voting, it is naive to claim that opinion does not guide publication. If I wanted to argue data that showed the speed of light in vacuum was much different from the current estimate, my evidence has to be much better than if I were simply confirming a widely held number. AND, it is perfectly reasonable for a political body to declare that pi is 3.1416 for all calculations used in contracts and surveying. Not so reasonable is to hold that planning commissions cannot use the best science when planning for long terms (which they do, by their nature). See North Carolina's actions, which blocked use of the science.
But, in my opinion the best hedge we have is banks and insurance companies. As long as they are permitted to do the math, we will be safe (unless they are prevented from using their best estimates by social engineering in the "democratic" body politic). For example, in New Orleans I bet rational assessment of long term risk would hurt the poor the most, making for irrational attempts to legislate away risk by blocking its use in assessing mortgages, etc. Think of the whole real estate bubble and the good intentions but bad ideas that made home ownership a right, not to be denied just because the owner could not afford it.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Look again all that red over Indonesia and the Philippines is from volcanism, all that red over Greenland and Iceland is from volcanism, all of that red in the north Pacific Ocean is volcanism. All that red in the South American and African equatorial regions is from the rainforrests. You have to go to China to see Anthropogenic CO2 levels high enough to be in the red.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The problem of developed countries is that they didn't have the means to measure their emissions. That's why the deal in the Kyoto protocol included that developing countries started to measure their emissions, while developed countries started to reduce them. Phase 2 was supposed to be about developing countries reducing emissions too, but developed countries such as US and Canada broke the deal by not reducing their emissions at all.
Documentation != evidence. The fallacy of argument through obfuscation is just as much a fallacy as anything else.
There is no evidence in politics. And economics is a social science. Don't expect the same kind of evidence as in physics or biology.
So what?
So waiting to be 100% sure that global warming is happening can mean it will be too late (more expensive), and is just as stupid as waiting to be 100% sure the comet will it the earth.
I wasn't suggesting that it was a viable option, I was just contrasting politics with what you can do with the IETF, which is an engineering task force based on running code.
Point is, even if we accept AGW is there and is a problem, it still doesn't tell us how we're going to fix it, and what impacts the fixes will have on us. If a "fix" ends up causing unrest, or a depression, you could end up with wars that might accelerate the process, instead of correcting it.
At least if you have code, it works and/or performs in relatively rapid time or not. We don't have that luxury with politics.
There is no evidence in politics. And economics is a social science. Don't expect the same kind of evidence as in physics or biology.
These are non sequiturs. There is evidence in climatology. And economics is a science, should we choose to treat it as such.
So waiting to be 100% sure that global warming is happening can mean it will be too late (more expensive), and is just as stupid as waiting to be 100% sure the comet will it the earth.
I think there's a better chance of a good outcome waiting on a demonstration of the supposed dire nature of global warming. Keep in mind that there's plenty of evidence indicating that the effects of global warming are long in coming, slow to occur, and moderate in effect. It is near trivial for a human civilization to adapt under those circumstances. I don't see the compelling reason to act that a significant, likely asteroid impact would have.
There is evidence in climatology.
Of course. And the evidence shows that global warming is happening, and that human activity is responsible.
And economics is a science, should we choose to treat it as such.
We do. But how much do we value a pacific island nation that would disappear because of climate change? I mean not only the land but its people and culture. How much do we value species that would go extinct? That's not an answer for economists, it's a moral/political one. You can't answer that with science. Therefore you will never have scientific evidence that we should invest X$ to fight climate change, just like you will never have scientific evidence of the opposite. And this is not a valid reason for not doing anything.
So the best we have are reports such as the Stern, Garnaut, and IPCC reports. They all conclude we should lower our emissions.
I think there's a better chance of a good outcome waiting on a demonstration of the supposed dire nature of global warming. Keep in mind that there's plenty of evidence indicating that the effects of global warming are long in coming, slow to occur, and moderate in effect.
Of course a rise of 2 Celsius might seem a "moderate" effect but the consequences aren't.
It is near trivial for a human civilization to adapt under those circumstances. I don't see the compelling reason to act that a significant, likely asteroid impact would have.
There you go. You didn't understand the whole point. Global warming has never been about the death of the human civilization. No wonder why you think we shouldn't do anything. Of course we would adapt. All those who pretended otherwise are alarmists without any clue about the real issue. But the real problem is that the costs of not doing anything are higher than acting.
If we know the models aren't even close to being predictive (at all), then why are we using them for policy?
IF you say, "Because that is the best we have", you're part of the problem and a religious nut.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Nice, but in the real world you often don't have the luxury of waiting that long.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
if something new comes up it should be impossible to have a policy for twenty years
I 'spose if the Sun is going to explode next year we should probably act faster but in general that's right: we shouldn't enact policy whose cost has a dozen zeros behind it until the science has been generating reliable predictions for decades.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Of course. And the evidence shows that global warming is happening, and that human activity is responsible.
Partly responsible. Otherwise, I agree. So what? My argument hasn't been that AGW doesn't exist, but that there isn't compelling reason to act on it in a costly way.
We do. But how much do we value a pacific island nation that would disappear because of climate change? I mean not only the land but its people and culture. How much do we value species that would go extinct? That's not an answer for economists, it's a moral/political one. You can't answer that with science. Therefore you will never have scientific evidence that we should invest X$ to fight climate change, just like you will never have scientific evidence of the opposite. And this is not a valid reason for not doing anything.
What's your willingness to pay out of your own wealth to protect these things? That tells me exactly how valuable these things are. And that's how you transform any preference into a purely economic question.
So the best we have are reports such as the Stern, Garnaut, and IPCC reports. They all conclude we should lower our emissions.
Here's a propaganda lesson for you. These are first past the post arguments from authority. Just because they existed before most counterarguments were formulated. doesn't mean that they were the best arguments even at the time of their creation. For example, the Stern report's flawed time value factor was readily apparent, meaning that reinterpreting the study through a more appropriate time value is already at the time of the publishing of the Stern report, is already better than the Stern report was.
What's your willingness to pay out of your own wealth to protect these things? That tells me exactly how valuable these things are. And that's how you transform any preference into a purely economic question.
It's more complex than that. Of course your willingness to pay for them will be $0. And let say they are willing to reduce their CO2 emission to close to 0 because they don't want their country to disappear. It won't be enough. Their sea level will still rise because of you. Does it mean they should pay the cost (losing their island) because you emit CO2? Seems unfair to me. You should pay for your own negative externalities, and not push them to other people or other generations.
Here's a propaganda lesson for you. These are first past the post arguments from authority. Just because they existed before most counterarguments were formulated. doesn't mean that they were the best arguments even at the time of their creation. For example, the Stern report's flawed time value factor was readily apparent, meaning that reinterpreting the study through a more appropriate time value is already at the time of the publishing of the Stern report, is already better than the Stern report was.
Alright, where can I read these reports? I want something comprehensive that covers the whole issue. So don't give me a source that covers only a specific country/region or a specific consequence.
It's more complex than that. Of course your willingness to pay for them will be $0. And let say they are willing to reduce their CO2 emission to close to 0 because they don't want their country to disappear. It won't be enough. Their sea level will still rise because of you. Does it mean they should pay the cost (losing their island) because you emit CO2? Seems unfair to me. You should pay for your own negative externalities, and not push them to other people or other generations.
Well, how much is an island worth? Again, I don't see anyone paying very much to protect these things. If it's not valuable to anyone else, then it's not valuable to me.
And if we're paying for our own externalities, shouldn't we also get compensated for our own externalities with the opposite sign?
Alright, where can I read these reports? I want something comprehensive that covers the whole issue. So don't give me a source that covers only a specific country/region or a specific consequence.
How about the Stern report where you take the estimated cost of global warming and divide it by ten. Then take the estimated cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions and multiply them by ten? That's a report that probably has more accurate cost/benefit analysis than the original report.
In other words, you're looking at the pretty pictures, making up a story about them, and trying to flog it off on /..
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And if we're paying for our own externalities, shouldn't we also get compensated for our own externalities with the opposite sign?
Yes. Generally if we consider something has positive externalities we tend to subsidize it.
How about the Stern report where you take the estimated cost of global warming and divide it by ten. Then take the estimated cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions and multiply them by ten? That's a report that probably has more accurate cost/benefit analysis than the original report.
Oh really. Now you are taking numbers out of your ass. If you think you are right, publish it. I am sure your methodology will be laugh at.
Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Everything is yes or no, black or white. No "50 Shades of Grey" for YOU!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes. Generally if we consider something has positive externalities we tend to subsidize it.
Unless it happens to be fossil fuel production and usage. Then we tend to pretend positive externality doesn't exist.
Oh really. Now you are taking numbers out of your ass. If you think you are right, publish it. I am sure your methodology will be laugh at.
So what? We were looking for something comprehensive that covers the whole issue and was more accurate than the Stern report and other such reports. I found one such.
Unless it happens to be fossil fuel production and usage. Then we tend to pretend positive externality doesn't exist.
They might exist but the negative ones far outweight the positives.
So what? We were looking for something comprehensive that covers the whole issue and was more accurate than the Stern report and other such reports. I found one such.
We were talking about credible, peer-reviewed reports.
They might exist but the negative ones far outweight the positives.
Show it then. Where is this evidence? I'll show as evidence of considerable positive externalities, the synergistic effects of cheaper energy and transportation on everything we do and make.
We were talking about credible, peer-reviewed reports.
And I was talking about a way to make those reports more accurate in fact than merely in appearance.
Show it then. Where is this evidence? I'll show as evidence of considerable positive externalities, the synergistic effects of cheaper energy and transportation on everything we do and make.
These are not externalities. That's the benefit to the user/customer. The evidence of the negative externalities is global warming. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... An other one is lower air quality in cities.
And I was talking about a way to make those reports more accurate in fact than merely in appearance.
That's your opinion. Thankfully no one will consider it. If you think your opinion/method is valuable, have the guts to publish it and get it peer reviewed.
The ones who pretend oil has no positive externalities are ones with political agendas. Namely, an agenda favoring oil. They'll pretend to be libertarians or fiscal conservatives, saying "nobody" should get subsidies. But they don't want the oil subsidies to be cut. So they pretend oil has no positive externalities thus aren't getting subsidies and thus there's nothing to cut from oil - only cut everybody else's subsidies!
That wouldn't make sense, since by granting such an argument, they would destroy the strongest argument for relatively unconstrained use of oil, namely, it's incredible usefulness for transportation. I could see the foolish or naive thinking that if they allow some point of debate, then their opponents will reciprocate by allowing some other point of debate of similar magnitude in the reverse direction, but that doesn't work in practice. An experienced debater wouldn't make such a mistake.
Further, my experience has been that everyone who insists that oil has huge negative externalities never mention the possibility that oil has positive externalities. And they don't favor oil.
These are not externalities. That's the benefit to the user/customer.
Externality is a benefit or cost to someone other than the user/customer. For example, a package delivery business can deliver packages cheaper with cheap oil. All of the customers of that business are third parties which can benefit from the cheaper costs of delivering packages. The customers of the customers in turn get cheaper services. In other words, cheap oil results in cheaper costs of doing anything in society even for parties which aren't directly directly consuming oil products for transportation.
That is the positive externality to oil.
That's your opinion. Thankfully no one will consider it. If you think your opinion/method is valuable, have the guts to publish it and get it peer reviewed.
A typical dishonest challenge. So it takes "guts" to publish something on your own dime contrary to the climate change group think? Sure. But what does it take to publish what your sugar daddy paying all your expenses wants you to publish? It's inevitable and easy like water flowing downhill.
Externality is a benefit or cost to someone other than the user/customer. For example, a package delivery business can deliver packages cheaper with cheap oil. All of the customers of that business are third parties which can benefit from the cheaper costs of delivering packages. The customers of the customers in turn get cheaper services. In other words, cheap oil results in cheaper costs of doing anything in society even for parties which aren't directly directly consuming oil products for transportation.
You don't get what an externality is. The delivery buisiness directly buy gas. The custommer of that buisness directly buy from that buisness. Therefore the cheap gas is not an externality. It doesn't benefit those not getting these services. Everybody suffers from lower air quality because of that gas, no matter if they use the delivery company or not. This is an externality.
A typical dishonest challenge. So it takes "guts" to publish something on your own dime contrary to the climate change group think? Sure. But what does it take to publish what your sugar daddy paying all your expenses wants you to publish? It's inevitable and easy like water flowing downhill.
No. It takes guts to publish, at all. You won't publish your method because you know it is flawed and would not be passing the peer review stage.
If you have a more plausible hypothesis, then by all means feel free to share
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You don't get what an externality is.
An externality is a cost or benefit to any party which is not part of a trade. That's it.
And you are part of the trade when you get a service from company A which in turns gets another service from company B.
And you are part of the trade when you get a service from company A which in turns gets another service from company B.
How? I benefit from the results of the trade, just as an asthmatic might suffer, but neither I or the asthmatic had a say in whether the trade happened or not. That makes me just another third party like everyone else who is not involved in the trade.
No. Just because you add a middle man in a trade doesn't make it an externality.
Nor does adding a middleman not make it an externality. If I make a deal with the US government so that every transaction in the US now has to pay me a 1% sales tax in order to occur, then I've become a middle man in a zillion trades, but as a negative externality of the one trade with the US government.
It's an externality when you are forcing it to others not part of the deal. When you buy service from a delivery company, the oil is part of the deal, even if the delivery company act as a middle man and do not extract, refine and transport the oil itself. An example of a positive externality is when you buy a christmas tree and put it in front of your house. All your neighboors benefit from the view of the new tree even if they are not parties to the the deal. Some people might think it's ugly and to them the externality is negative. A positive externality from oil could be the Northwest passage. Even if you don't want to, when you burn gas in your car, you contribute to the navigation in northen Canada.
"In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit."
Look at what I claimed externality meant:
An externality is a cost or benefit to any party which is not part of a trade.
Since the other parties are not part of the trade, then they did not choose to incur the costs or benefits of the trade and hence, my definition matches the Wikipedia definition of externality for trading.
Unless it doesn't.
You're throwing away the synergy argument as a result. Namely, that cheap, abundant oil makes everything else cheaper and everyone wealthier. That's the argument for using and even subsidizing oil in a nutshell. Lose that and you're stuck haggling over the amount of the carbon tax or size of the cap-and-trade markets.
Never mention != pretend it doesn't exist
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Actually it is evidence especially since the positive externalities of transportation and energy have been a big argument both for using oil and for making that oil cheap for decades. It's too prevalent and important to just not mention. For example, the price of oil is the second most important factor for inflation in the developed world after supply of money.
I see the other poster you've been arguing with has not pretend the externalties don't exist, but merely say "the negative ones far outweight the positives."
Which is a good sign since that means someone can modify their rhetorical arguments to take into account an opponent's position. It doesn't mean I'll agree with them though especially since they are now ignoring the positive externalities explicitly (as being "far outweighed" without justification) rather than implicitly.
When you buy service from a delivery company, the oil is part of the deal, even if the delivery company act as a middle man and do not extract, refine and transport the oil itself.
So are any negative externalities from fossil fuel use that drive up the price of the service. For example, if I buy an agricultural product which is made cheaper due to the use of cheap oil, then sure, that's part of the deal, a part which I didn't choose.
But if the farms which produce that agricultural product also are suffering from a drought directly caused by AGW and which drives up the cost of the product in question? Well, that's part of the deal too. And again, a part which I didn't choose.
So are any negative externalities from fossil fuel use that drive up the price of the service. For example, if I buy an agricultural product which is made cheaper due to the use of cheap oil, then sure, that's part of the deal, a part which I didn't choose.
You don't choose the price in a competitive market. Anyway it's not the price of oil which has externalities. It's its use.
But if the farms which produce that agricultural product also are suffering from a drought directly caused by AGW and which drives up the cost of the product in question? Well, that's part of the deal too. And again, a part which I didn't choose.
That's not part of the deal. Amish farmers not using oil will suffer equally from AGW.
You don't choose the price in a competitive market.
An irrelevant detail, but it's worth noting that you do choose whether to engage in a trade or not.
That's not part of the deal. Amish farmers not using oil will suffer equally from AGW.
So externalities count only if they're incurred by people who are perceived by a single internet poster as not being participants in a market? The benefits or costs of an externality are not magically different from any other benefits or costs when it comes to trade. It's all part of the deal whether you can choose it or not.
It's the impact on those not part of the deal which is an externality. You and the delivery company are both part of the deal. Any impact on any of you is NOT an externality. Any impact on someone else is an externality, no matter if they personally use oil or not, as if they do it's not related to this deal.
It's the impact on those not part of the deal which is an externality.
No, that's not what externality means. Externality means you didn't make a choice to incur the cost or benefit. Making a trade doesn't imply that I'm part of some larger, nebulous "deal" and hence have agreed to whatever externalities I'm exposed to.
Making a trade doesn't imply that I'm part of some larger, nebulous "deal" and hence have agreed to whatever externalities I'm exposed to.
It's not nebulous. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make it an externality. So whether you agree or not to the pollution of your own car, it is par of the deal, or the trade (between you and the gas company) if you prefer. What is not part of the deal is the pollution that you force to others while driving your car.
Externality means you didn't make a choice to incur the cost or benefit.
Yes. And when you buy gas, or buy service from a delivery company, you make the choice to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. A small part of that cost will be assumed by you. But a much larger amount will be assumed by the rest of the world, and this is what we call an externality.
It's not nebulous. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make it an externality. So whether you agree or not to the pollution of your own car, it is par of the deal, or the trade (between you and the gas company) if you prefer. What is not part of the deal is the pollution that you force to others while driving your car.
I prefer "trade" not "deal" because "trade" has an established meaning ("mutually voluntary exchange of goods or services") while "deal" apparently means "Whatever danbob999 decides it means". I note that you have yet to objectively define "deal" or explain its relevance to anything we've been discussing.
Yes. And when you buy gas, or buy service from a delivery company, you make the choice to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. A small part of that cost will be assumed by you. But a much larger amount will be assumed by the rest of the world, and this is what we call an externality.
It's an externality because the rest of the world didn't participate in my transaction. Similarly, cheaper or more expensive oil can result in near universally cheaper or more expensive goods and services even when the agent doesn't do anything with oil or its derivative products directly. That's an externality as well by definition since the beneficiaries didn't participate in the trading or use of fuel and thus did not voluntarily incur the cost or benefit of the pricing of oil-derived fuels.
The cost of all goods include the cost of transportation. When you pay for an apple, you pay for pesticide, oil, transport, the retailer's accountant and a whole bunch of stuff whether you like it or not and these are not externalities, these are part of the voluntary trade, no matter if you are aware of the details or not.
Negative externalities of the apple include pollution that the rest of the world incurs because of the burning of oil for the transportation of that apple. Positives externalities include the beautiful views of an orchard.
Externalities are not related to price. Cheap oil has the same externalities as expensive oil. Externalities are related to its production and burning in your car. Not to the price you pay at the pump.
The cost of all goods include the cost of transportation. When you pay for an apple, you pay for pesticide, oil, transport, the retailer's accountant and a whole bunch of stuff whether you like it or not and these are not externalities, these are part of the voluntary trade, no matter if you are aware of the details or not.
No, it doesn't work that way. You already included a number of externalities. The retailer's accountant, for example, often is employed to insure compliance with tax codes and employment regulation. The marginal cost of the labor required to deal with that is an externality.
For oil, similarly, the various goods and services that the apple grower uses which are not directly tied to the purchase of your apple, also make the apple a little bit cheaper. That's an externality of oil which directly changes the price of the apple. Similar, because the apple is cheaper or more expensive, you may be able to offer your goods and services (eg, your labor) at a cheaper price or forced to offer at a more expensive price . And you can purchase more or less of other goods and services that you consume.
Externalities are not related to price. Cheap oil has the same externalities as expensive oil. Externalities are related to its production and burning in your car. Not to the price you pay at the pump.
This is deeply flawed reasoning. The price of oil due to its prevalent use throughout human society creates substantial externalities just on that basis alone.
Externalities are not related to price.
As an aside, the more (or less) something costs, the less (or more) incentive there is to produce it. Higher supply results in a price swing in the opposite direction due to supply and demand. That right there creates a positive correlation between externalities incurred by something and the price offered for that thing.
You already included a number of externalities. The retailer's accountant, for example, often is employed to insure compliance with tax codes and employment regulation. The marginal cost of the labor required to deal with that is an externality.
There you go again. No it isn't. It's required by law to pay taxes just as it is required to pay your employees and not kill them at the end of the day. Just because it would be cheaper if this law didn't exist doesn't make it an externality. I don't think you will ever understand what an externality is. There isn't much more I can do here. I understand that you will never want to lower CO2 emissions if you don't get what an externality is.
No it isn't. It's required by law to pay taxes just as it is required to pay your employees and not kill them at the end of the day.
So you're saying it's not strictly a negative externality. The moral content or intent of a policy is completely irrelevant to whether it creates an externality or not.
Just because it would be cheaper if this law didn't exist doesn't make it an externality.
Of course not. It's incurred without choice by the employer, that's what makes it an externality.
I don't think you will ever understand what an externality is. There isn't much more I can do here. I understand that you will never want to lower CO2 emissions if you don't get what an externality is.
Funny, doesn't look like that from my end. While I grant someone seems to have a problem understanding what an externality is, I find it more interesting that merely characterizing this massive synergy of fossil fuels, energy, and transportation with the entirety of an economy, as not an externality is sufficient to dismiss it.
This strikes me as comparable to the argument from authority fallacy you presented earlier, created by presenting "credible, peer-reviewed", but highly biased predictions as if they were the best possible guesses out there.
Sure, if we ignore contrary evidence, like what I've remarked on (such as ignoring the positive externalities of fossil fuel use, proper time value of money, or the oter systematic biases contributing to portraying radical carbon dioxide emission reduction as something with low costs and large benefits) then sure, we can reach agreement on this. It's just not worth my effort to do so. Nor would it be moral.
So you're saying it's not strictly a negative externality. The moral content or intent of a policy is completely irrelevant to whether it creates an externality or not.
No I am not saying it's not strictly a negative externality. I'm saying it's not an externality at all.
It's incurred without choice by the employer, that's what makes it an externality.
Completely wrong again. It's not without choice. The employer has the choice in hiring employees or not. If he does, however, he has to take the whole package, which means, among others, paying a salary. Being forced to pay a salary is not a negative externality to the employer. It's part of the cost of a trade he agrees with (otherwise, he's free not doing that trade). The same goes with filling tax forms. It's part of the costs of operating a business. It's not an externality as you have the choice to operate or not your business.
Funny, doesn't look like that from my end. While I grant someone seems to have a problem understanding what an externality is, I find it more interesting that merely characterizing this massive synergy of fossil fuels, energy, and transportation with the entirety of an economy, as not an externality is sufficient to dismiss it.
I haven't dismissed the advantages of oil. They are very important. However they aren't externalities. I am sure there are positives externalities from the consumption of oil. You just didn't find any yet.
This strikes me as comparable to the argument from authority fallacy you presented earlier, created by presenting "credible, peer-reviewed", but highly biased predictions as if they were the best possible guesses out there.
You are confusing expert opinion with argument from authority.
Sure, if we ignore contrary evidence, like what I've remarked on (such as ignoring the positive externalities of fossil fuel use, proper time value of money, or the oter systematic biases contributing to portraying radical carbon dioxide emission reduction as something with low costs and large benefits)
You wish that evidence existed, but you haven't presented any. No example of any positive externality for oil, no evidence about what would be the "proper" time value of money, and no evidence of other systematic biases.
You are confusing expert opinion with argument from authority.
Not at all. Expert opinion is the most common basis for an argument from authority. Let's look at the three examples you gave, the Stern Review, the Garnaut Climate Change Reviews, and the IPCC's series of assessment reports. The first thing to observe is that the first two reports were funded by politicians with a particular agenda and who happened to need a particular outcome of those reports and for which the reports just happen to deliver on that agenda and need.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair needed a pretext for supporting near future greenhouse gases emission controls. He sets aside public funds for the Stern Review, and (what a coincidence!) the Stern Review just so happens to support his needs of the moment. Same goes for the Garnaut Reviews which happen to fill the same role for former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
IPCC has long been notorious for providing what pro-climate change propaganda is needed as it is needed. For example, we have the "hockey stick" estimate promulgated in the 2001 Third ASsessment Report, extreme weather in the next assessment, and heating of the oceans in the latest one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden confidence by considerable narrowing of the temperature forcing of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the next assessment report.
Each of these reporting sources has consistently exaggerated its conclusions in favor of current carbon dioxide emission reduction. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the consistent biases of the Stern Review. The Garnaut Reviews are even worse with a claim of only 0.1 to 0.2% of Australia's fossil fuel-dependent GDP lost each year to mitigation policies for AGW. That's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, the IPCC has long been notorious for exaggerating the impact of AGW while simultaneously downplaying the costs of greenhouse gases emissions reduction. For example, I was told by slashdotter Layzej that the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) predicted a 0.1 to 0.2 C increase in global mean temperature over the few decades after 2001 (using scenario "IS92a").
But when I actually looked at the "Summary for Policy Makers" I see claims of larger near future heating for the scenario in question (of 0.1 C to 0.3 C) with the high end of the initial range of increases presented instead as a median value of this new, unjustified range. I also saw that in this Summary the TAR had obsoleted the scenario in question and was using scenarios that presented more aggressive heating.
In other words, the fine print, which Layzej unearthed was buried deep in the report somewhere, while other, significantly worse and unjustified scenarios were presented for public consumption. Now, that those overly alarmist scenarios are failing, supporters are digging up the hidden, but somewhat more accurate predictions and claiming that the IPCC was right all along.
This sort of dishonesty and misuse of expert opinion is why I term the whole effort an argument from authority. But don't get me wrong I think there's a lot more fallacies at play here than just argument from authority.
My view on this is that "expert opinion" and "peer reviewed and published" doesn't outweigh being deliberately wrong.
My view on this is that "expert opinion" and "peer reviewed and published" doesn't outweigh being deliberately wrong.
Of course. But you haven't made the demonstration that these reports are wrong. You just make unsubstantiated claims that they are wrong.
But you haven't made the demonstration that these reports are wrong.
So what? If there's money for these sorts of games, then there's money for independent examination.