Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

Recommended Posts

On 2/11/2019 at 9:32 AM, Ahab said:

The USA did not start two massive world wars, but we did help clean them up. Maybe the rest of the world has little idea about what is important to "worry about".

America cleaned up with 2 atomic bombs, napalm,

daisy cutters, agent orange, and a list of hideous

weapons too numerous to list..US has been involved

in over 100 wars, and 60 or so regime changes since

1945.  All for profit.  Venezuela next?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you aware it was in 1645 when people used horses and the population was a fraction of the present? How exactly did humans cause it?

SUHs - Sports Utility Horses.

 

In the world of the Green/Left, irrationality reigns.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's simply not true.

 

The  scientific consensus is that:

a ) the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850

b ) man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have most likely contributed to that warming

 

The idea of a "threat" is not really a question for scientists anyway. They can make computer models predicting whatever disasters they choose, but it is really in the realm of economics to decide whether this represents a "threat".

 

The Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, who is perhaps the best-known specialist on the impacts of future climate change, recently collated studies from around the world estimating the damage caused by climate change by the year 2100.

 

The results were: Not much, even at the extreme estimates of temperature rise.

 

impact_2100_small.jpg.5d7378ba54b7c66cb74fb9aff0c4f0f1.jpg

 

So, for any mainstream estimate of temperature rise, damage comes in at a few percent of output at most. And by 2100, the world will be many times richer than it is today.

 

Where's the "threat"?

The conclusions of the report the graphic you posted was taken from are not helping your argument:

 

The report accepts significant areas of economy and environment are not included and that the findings are likely under estimates.

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23646.pdf

 

You also portray the work of Nordhaus as being the scientific consensus, it is not.

 

Nordhaus is very much a neo-classicist, and this is clear in his work.

 

A broader view:

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you aware it was in 1645 when people used horses and the population was a fraction of the present? How exactly did humans cause it?

I think Wilco pops was being facetious.

 

I’m only surprised you missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You also portray the work of Nordhaus as being the scientific consensus, it is not.

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Quote

Nordhaus is very much a neo-classicist, and this is clear in his work.

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The best way to go about cutting CO2 emissions would be to ramp up nuclear power, but of course the Green/Left won't have a bar of that. It's almost like they don't believe the problem is serious.

You will find that it is the fossil fuels lobby, not the "green/left" who are stopping new nuclear. This is not 1972...

Edited by mikebike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

That’s arguably the most bizarre explanation for the failings of the Paris Agreement.

 

Youshould consider the possibility that the ‘Greens/Left’ might have indeed identified the culprit.

 

Certainly it is not the ‘Greens/Left’ that are funding climate change denial, nor is it the ‘Green/Left’ pouring money into the pockets of politicians to forestall or indeed reverse environmental legislation.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You will find that it is the fossil fuels lobby, not the "green/left" who are fighting new nuclear. This is not 1972...

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, I don't. I merely said that he had collected studies from many experts in the field and those were their conclusions. Good science doesn't work on consensus, it works on open debate of differences between people. NASA is also entitled to its opinion.

 

Disputing someone's credentials because they don't say what you want to hear is not a sustainable strategy. 

 

One of the biggest mistakes the Green/Left has made is portraying the climate debate as a power struggle between the good (them) and the evil (capitalists and their lackeys).

 

It's very unhelpful, and a major reason why nothing significant has been done for 20 years about climate and why the 2015 Paris Agreement essentially ended any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Anyone who adopts this antagonistic, essentially Hobbesian view of the climate debate is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

First of all I don't agree with your statement you didn't pretend his material was the consensus. Yes, you didn't write that, but muffled it in in such a way the intention was clear: pretend it was something it isn't.

 

Secondly, please don't blame the people who want to do something about the environment and climate for the fact that far from enough is being done. Your argumentation here is as twisted as it can get.

Edited by stevenl
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blazes said:

...if you knew academia from the inside, you would not be so ready, willing and able to give "scientists" such unquestioned belief.

We question scientists constantly and rightly. We do not question the scientific method. If YOU understood that you wouldn't make asinine statements...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Certainly it is not the ‘Greens/Left’ that are funding climate change denial, nor is it the ‘Green/Left’ pouring money into the pockets of politicians to forestall or indeed reverse environmental legislation.

As if it needed repeating, anyone who can't do better than drone on about "denial", and organised funding of denial, is part of the problem, not the solution.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Would you care to explain what you think is wrong with their statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As if it needed repeating, anyone who can't do better than drone on about "denial", and organised funding of denial, is part of the problem, not the solution.

You’ve not improved your argument by getting personal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Here's Greenpeace's mission statement on nuclear power:

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

Edited my post to reflect that some l/g groups my still be fighting new nuclear, but they are not the ones stopping its proliferation.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...