Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

This is a most incredible thread. I have tried to read all of it but its voluminous. Its got to be a record.. But no surprise, not one convert to either side...

It's not about the science, so much as our world view. To change one's mind about the scientific facts might require one to admit that one's fundamental beliefs are wrong.

We all suffer from the tendency to look for and perceive evidence consistent with our hypotheses and to deny, dismiss or distort evidence that is not.
Most of us believe, or disbelieve, in global warming because we feel it justifies our ideological convictions and world view; hence cognitive dissonance kicks in, leading us down the road to confirmation bias.

Climate change poses a profound threat to many things that right-wing, conservative, and/or libertarian ideologues believe in. Conservatives tend to champion individual freedom, private property rights, small government, free markets, and above all else, unfettered industrial capitalism. Denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on much else, and their whole political identity would unravel.

On the other side, if AGW is true, then stopping or preventing it requires higher taxes, more income redistribution, more regulations on corporations, subsidies for renewable energy, and collective action, etc. In other words, many of the policies already on the liberal agenda.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by SailOar

At this point temperatures are not too excessive. Historically they are not outside the "normal" boundaries of the past 10,000 years. What is alarming is the rate of change. It is unprecedented. Furthermore, it is (a) not natural, but man-made; (b) on-going, and not likely to stop anytime in the near future.

And it's not just high temperatures that are cause for alarm, but also the associated sea-level rise, ocean acidification, unpredictable rates of precipitation, etc -- to say nothing of all the other types of environmental degradation that 7 billion plus people are inflicting on the Earth. The changes that are coming our way are not going to wipe out the human race, but it will make life much more difficult. Maybe we are like Goldilocks and don't want things either too hot or too cold, but rather "just right".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

You don't know, and can't prove that either a or b above is true. The first is your opinion that the current rate of change is primarily man made, and the second is pure speculation because it's in the future.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It's not about the science, so much as our world view.

We all suffer from the tendency to look for and perceive evidence consistent with our hypotheses and to deny, dismiss or distort evidence that is not.
Most of us believe, or disbelieve, in global warming because we feel it justifies our ideological convictions and world view; hence cognitive dissonance kicks in, leading us down the road to confirmation bias.

Climate change poses a profound threat to many things that right-wing, conservative, and/or libertarian ideologues believe in. Conservatives tend to champion individual freedom, private property rights, small government, free markets, and above all else, unfettered industrial capitalism. Denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on much else, and their whole political identity would unravel.

On the other side, if AGW is true, then stopping or preventing it requires higher taxes, more income redistribution, more regulations on corporations, subsidies for renewable energy, and collective action, etc. In other words, many of the policies already on the liberal agenda.

Lots of stereotypes there and probably some of them have merit. But I am a Union Card carrying Conservative with a capital C and the only big corporation I care about even slightly is the one I work for, and then only because I need a paycheck until I retire in 6 more years to support my eating and sailing habits. Despite the stereotypes you mention, I see no reason I should care one way or the other whether Walmart or any other big corporation continues to expand or files for bankruptcy and is dissolved. I think that most conservatives are a lot like me, just trying to make a living for their families and having no more interest in which company is doing well or failing than most liberals have. We do understand that if corporations fail, then a lot of jobs go away or are displaced, and that's bad for you and me or our neighbor, but if a company doesn't do as good a job of providing a service or product at a competitive price as its competitors, it has failed in its mission and should be allowed to go out of business. Free market economics interests me, not because of any ideological preference, but simply because I like reading history and it's been proven over and over again that is the only system that works over the long term. Every time central planning takes over an economy, eventually that economy fails and the people suffer. I truly wish it weren't true but unfortunately the world doesn't operate on what I wish, but rather what IS. Liberals need to understand that too. The free market makes logical choices because the free market is made up of ALL of us doing what it is in our own self interest and collectively we know what goods and services we want better than any central planner can, no matter how much he studies our preferences. I don't like it when corporations get TOO big and TOO powerful because I think competition is healthy and benefits us all, but the only thing worse than a huge company like Walmart taking over a large part of our economy is the government taking over an even bigger part of our economy via excessive regulation. If a powerful company gets too drunk with power and too arrogant, there's huge built in incentive and always a chance that some other, hungrier company can eventually figure out a way to upend them, but once you hand over control to a government bureaucrat, it's game over because no matter how many bad decisions he makes, there's no incentive for him to change and nobody can take away his power.

I also don't deny climate change, only that it hasn't been scientifically proven that we are the primary cause of climate change or that overall any change that's happening is "unnatural" or is harmful more than it's helpful. Too many people seem to take it as truth that the "optimum" climate is the climate we had 50 or 100 years ago but I see no evidence to justify that as the optimum climate that we should spend a lot of money trying to achieve. Climate has always changed and will always change, no surprise there. I also deny that we should do "something" even though we don't even understand whether a problem that needs correcting actually exists or what impact we might have on it. I think that's just common sense, not liberal OR conservative ideology.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I also don't deny climate change, only that it hasn't been scientifically proven that we are the primary cause of climate change or that overall any change that's happening is "unnatural" or is harmful more than it's helpful.

Then you are also a Denier with a capital 'D'. There is a huge, ever-growing mountain of evidence that says we are the cause and that it is harmful/unhelpful to us.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

You don't know, and can't prove that either a or b above is true. The first is your opinion that the current rate of change is primarily man made, and the second is pure speculation because it's in the future.

The first is backed by evidence, and the second, while speculative, is an extremely safe prediction based on the rate of change we're seeing.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Then you are also a Denier with a capital 'D'. There is a huge, ever-growing mountain of evidence that says we are the cause and that it is harmful/unhelpful to us.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what the "mountain of evidence" proves or doesn't prove.

Climate change is harmful/unhelpful to "us," you and me? Climate change hasn't harmed me and I'm confident that, just as man has done all throughout history through upswings and downswings in worldwide temps, I"ll continue to successfully adapt to whatever may come. How has climate change harmed you and why didn't you use your brain to adapt so as to avoid being harmed? Best wishes in your attempt to recover from that harm that has been done to you by global warming!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Free market economics interests me, not because of any ideological preference, but simply because I like reading history and it's been proven over and over again that is the only system that works over the long term.

That's an interesting bit.

Long term.

As a species we've only been around for a tiny amount of time and "modern" civilization with massive population growth made possible on basically free energy by setting fire to hydrocarbons laid down over millions of years has been around for less than the briefest instant. Maybe in a good few hundred thousand years if the species of monkey which calls itself humans is still around, then the phrase "long term" might be a little bit more applicable.


PS Should have mentioned, this is relevant as it shows what an incredibly short term view many here have of the planet.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

We'll have to agree to disagree about what the "mountain of evidence" proves or doesn't prove.

Evidence is evidence, it doesn't have bias.

Climate change is harmful/unhelpful to "us," you and me? Climate change hasn't harmed me and I'm confident that, just as man has done all throughout history through upswings and downswings in worldwide temps, I"ll continue to successfully adapt to whatever may come.

"Us" as in mankind/human civilisation/global society. We've based our modern farming, settlement, transport, and more systems on certain temperates and climate behaviour. Altering them to suit a very rapidly changing climate will be hugely expensive, difficult and disruptive. Poorer nations hit by more frequent extreme weather will likely suffer famines and see mass migrations. Pacific island nations are already suffering more frequent and more extreme flooding.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Free market economics interests me, not because of any ideological preference, but simply because I like reading history and it's been proven over and over again that is the only system that works over the long term.

Even advocates of the free market understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.
A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.
The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other.The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Every time central planning takes over an economy, eventually that economy fails and the people suffer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.

That statement shows a degree of ignorance that frankly it belittles your credibility. I spent years traveling the Country enforcing the Air Emission rules and regulation on the Fossil Fuel Industry. Everything that goes on at fossil fuel plate is measured and regulated. If you can't get that simple truth right...well....how are we to take you seriously on other issues?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That statement shows a degree of ignorance that frankly it belittles your credibility. I spent years traveling the Country enforcing the Air Emission rules and regulation on the Fossil Fuel Industry. Everything that goes on at fossil fuel plate is measured and regulated. If you can't get that simple truth right...well....how are we to take you seriously on other issues?

Including CO2 emissions?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jackdale
The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I spent years traveling the Country enforcing the Air Emission rules and regulation on the Fossil Fuel Industry. Everything that goes on at fossil fuel plate is measured and regulated.

Booth assertions are essentially true and do not contradict each other.

The prices paid by the consumers of fossil fuels do not account for the full life-cycle cost of consuming those fuels. As a consequence, governments (eg - taxpayers) have had to shoulder the cost of cleaning up from their production and use, and for regulating the way in which those fuels are consumed.

(I note that the scientists who gave the alarm about pollution, which led to the regulations which provided the pollution control market that Rich so ably served... these were GOOD scientists, unlike those nasty conspiratorial, error-prone 'scientists' we have today. That is all)

[SV THIRD DAY]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a natural result of biological respiration.
Don't believe me....ask your Science Book.

You don't have to convince me....you have to convince the American Voter, who so far thinks the MMGW Cultists are crazy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a natural result of biological respiration.
Don't believe me....ask your Science Book.

You don't have to convince me....you have to convince the American Voter, who so far thinks the MMGW Cultists are crazy.

And an unnatural result of burning fossil fuels.