Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

This "consensus" is established by yet another study (a study of studies) that is so poorly written my high school science teachers would have thrown it in the garbage if I tried to pass it off as a lab report, much less scientific literature. Even if there is a consensus (which they may be), the people writing the article have no idea what they're talking about if they think this crap study means anything at all whatsoever in the scientific community. It's a joke. People reading articles like this are what create a lot of confusion about what scientists actually do and how a consensus can actually be established.
Reading the actual study (not the article) reveals that only 32.6% of the papers in their sample even took a stance on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). So only something like 30% of all the papers on climate change from 1991-2011 endorsed AGW. A much lower number than the misleading figure of 97%. There are a multitude of reasons that scientists might not take a stance on AGW in a given paper, but still disagree with it. The "study" proposes that other research might not have a stance because they already agree with AGW. Why would a supposedly unbiased paper be making a claim for the other 66% that they just didn't take a stance because they already know it's true when the whole purpose of their own study was to determine what the stances were to begin with. EVEN DESPITE ALL THE OTHER B.S., this 97%-of-stance-taking-papers figure would be impressive if the study weren't full of holes (if nothing else because of their poor use of language).
There are so many holes in this study I don't even know where to begin. Because of the general poorness of how their methods are written, it almost seems as if the people rating the studies were volunteers from a website known as skepticalscience.com (which seems to be biased in my opinion, but whatever). 12 individuals rated the studies in the sample to determine if they took a stance, and if so, what that stance was. It gives no mention of the education level or any other details for that matter on these so-called "raters". Second, each study was rated by only two people. 33% of the endorsement ratings were in disagreement originally (this is fairly startling in and of itself). THEY WERE THEN ALLOWED TO COMPARE AND JUSTIFY THEIR RATINGS. Every good scientist knows that you don't let your subjects be influenced by any outside factors, EVER. After "comparing and justifying", 16% of endorsement ratings were still in disagreement. "These were then resolved by a third party." What the hell are they talking about? A third party? Where did this third party come from? Who is it? Was it a random member of the other raters? Were they discussing this the whole time too?
There are other problems with this but these are the main ones, and any one of them is worth, at the very least, a re-submission by the authors.
It drives me nuts when people start making claims about something (like a consensus) because they read popular articles based off of shitty science. No I don't know a lot about climate change data or statistics, so there may very well be a consensus of sorts, but it isn't based on this study or some random ass figure of 97%. I just happen to love science and know how it actually works.

[IQS.RLOW]

What happens when dodgy science is accepted by numptys...numpties accept that they should be charged for it. Thanks SN, for contributing to everyone being charged a fee for fuck all dickhead.
http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where- ... -it-seems/

[Super Nova]

What happens when dodgy science is accepted by numptys...numpties accept that they should be charged for it. Thanks SN, for contributing to everyone being charged a fee for fuck all dickhead.
;

The taxation element is an issue. Money should not be wasted on initiative that have no value or effect - I have already agreed on this point.

The fact you seem to think that because something needs to be done and the proposals for that something and the funding is via taxation as a reason to DO NOTHING.

I disagree with this head in the sand approach. I disagree that we are building up a major liability now that will effect our future. Liabilities have to be paid for. So the argument that it is 50 times cheaper to do fuck all and just adapt to the consequence is just Bullshit.

Science needs to continue to refine their models and improve measurements.... they are not good enough at the moment. This is a risk mitigation exercise, if the risk materialises it will be too late. The consequences will be significant.


NS: Forgot to add the appropriate abuse.

........ you drongo.

For our USA members

noun, plural dron·gos. Australian Slang.
a stupid or slow-witted person; simpleton.

[Jovial_Monk]

The power mix here since the introduction of the Carbon Price laws has shifted to lower carbon pollution and this will continue.

That is not the only thing we should or are doing so the mandatory renewable energy target, Clean Air fund etc.

[IQS.RLOW]

The fact you seem to think that because something needs to be done and the proposals for that something and the funding is via taxation as a reason to DO NOTHING.

You are wrong. I think nothing needs to be done because I believe that AGW is an ideological campaign driven by vested interests that has no basis in reality. That aside, the funding via taxation IS what you will get, force on the rest of us and deprive the poor of a standard of living you have enjoyed while you practice your handwringing, sobbing and wailing "we need to do something now! W-w-won't s-s-someone think of t-t-the children wwwwaaaaaaah "

[Super Nova]

IQ

Don't you think the current population of humanity should consider the legacy it will leave the world? - YES
Are short term economics more important than the long term survival of our society or humanity? - NO

[IQS.RLOW]

Airy fairy motherhood statements exactly the same as made by other Gaia worshipers and relies nuts.

[Super Nova]

Doing nothing is the wrong option.

It is that simple.

Your only argument for doing nothing is it will cost more to do something than doing nothing.

In the long run it will cost more in money and in lives and in quality of life. This long run is less than a 100 years away. We will be dead but our children will not be.

However I think your option will win through with money being wasted by those trying to do something that is not supported by the whole of society. It will fail and it will be even a bigger waste of money because it will not be effective.

The waste will come from doing too little too late. It is more cost effective to do smaller things now than deferring the environment debt to later.


.... hold the press...... chaos and an urgent need to address the environment in 50 years time will generate economic activity.... now I see it. The nan industry can be built by the west funded by taxes on poorer nations to control the world weather. Big CO2 extractors run by US companies all round the world. Now I understand the rationale.

[IQS.RLOW]

Doing nothing is the wrong option.

This is just another of your unqualified opinions.
I could ask you 'why' its the wrong option but I know that your answer will be filled with motherhood statements, scary illogical scenarios and more bullshit- just like you have done with this

In the long run it will cost more in money and in lives and in quality of life. This long run is less than a 100 years away. We will be dead but our children will not be.

Completely. Unqualified. Bullshit.

[Super Nova]

Bullshit is your position from a screwed view of costs and impact.

How Much Acting Now Will Cost
Stern estimates that it would cost one per cent of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to stabilise current emissions over the next 20 years and reduce by up to three per cent thereafter.

How Much Doing Nothing Will Cost
In the worst case scenario, the global economy could shrink by a massive 20% as a direct result of the massive effects of climate change over the next century. Extreme weather conditions alone would reduce global GDP by one per cent. And depending on by how much global temperatures rise by, global output could reduce by up to 10%.

For all these reasons, now rather than later is the time to act. Many environmental groups have called for the government to set stricter targets than the 20% cut in CO2 pollution by 2010 the UK has already committed to. As a result of the Stern Report’s findings, the government have committed to working with the World Bank to fund projects to fight climate change worldwide, and to set bigger emissions targets by 2030.


http://www.energysavingsecrets.co.uk/Th ... hange.html

The High Cost Of Doing Nothing

Americans Already Are Paying Billions in a Climate Disruption Tax Amid Inaction on Climate Change
While policymakers in Washington debate what to do about climate change, it is already costing the American people tens of billions of dollars every year, and the costs are rising. In 2012, that price tag was especially high: Climate-related droughts, super storms, hurricanes, blizzards, heat waves, and wildfires in the United States killed 349 people and caused an estimated $139 billion in damages. Across the nation, more than 3,500 monthly weather records for heat, rain, and snow were shattered -- a new, all-time high. While it is difficult to tie individual extreme weather events to climate change, the science is unequivocal: the growing accumulation of carbon pollution ringing our planet turbocharges what once were just natural disasters. Now, their intensity is increasingly man-made.

Last year, the costs of extreme weather in the United States totaled almost 1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product -- equal to roughly half of all the sales taxes states collected in 2012. That cost is, in effect, a "climate disruption tax," equal to a 2.7 percentage point increase in what Americans paid in sales taxes last year.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/clima ... on-tax.asp

The Cost of Climate Change
February 26, 2013

The Brookings Institution said Tuesday that a carbon tax could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen federal budget shortfalls. The National Association of Manufacturers, meanwhile, released a study that found a carbon tax would hurt the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders disputed the manufacturers’ lobby. He pointed to ways his legislation on climate change would help business, create jobs and save billions of dollars spent on disaster relief. “The price that America cannot afford to pay is the price of doing nothing to reverse global warming,” he said.

Sanders recently introduced climate change legislation that is co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The insurance industry has warned about the escalating costs to taxpayers, homeowners and businesses as a result of increasingly frequent natural disasters caused by extreme weather. Already this year, Congress approved $60 billion to help New York and New Jersey recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy.

Climate change has contributed to a five-fold increase in weather disasters such as extreme heat waves, drought, storms, and flooding in North America since 1980, according to a new study from Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company. The average weather-related insurance industry loss in the U.S. was about $3 billion a year in the 1980s compared to approximately $20 billion annually by the end of the past decade, according to a report for the Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... 619B53D87D