Quote from: cj111 on February 04, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
Yeah, since tens of thousands of people are killed worldwide every year by severe weather events and the devastation that follows (disease, famine, etc.), I would say that children's lives are put in danger by an increasing number of severe weather events.

And that has been going on for 1000's of years, not something that just started since the industrial revolution.  That's part of the bigger point.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 04, 2015, 02:07:25 PM
A bit of a stretch but that's fine. You've made your point. I'm not denying climate change but I guess I don't feel as strongly about its effects as others on here.

Only a fool would deny climate change.

Only a fool would deny that there are politics involved and money to be made in the climate change arena.

Only a fool would deny that those whose politics and economic self interest have led them to predict near term disaster have been debunked.

I'd say neither fringe looks very good on this.

And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics.  We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics).  If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever.  For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand.  Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response.  Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

[...]

Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

but we'd feel so good doing it.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics.  We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics).  If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever.  For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand.  Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response.  Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

You're not wrong, but here's the problem: Climate change is likely a cumulative and exponential problem that can't just be "solved". It's going to take YEARS of work to change our behaviors, and we likely won't see huge impacts until years down the road.

But, if we wait around and/or don't address the issues, then it's seriously going to be too late to change.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
And that has been going on for 1000's of years, not something that just started since the industrial revolution.  That's part of the bigger point.

Your missing point is that transitions happen slowly over hundreds of years and "life" and "nature" have a chance to acclimate and rebalance which greatly differs than the present which has happened over 20/25 years and the change in that short time span is more severe than anything historical since perhaps the asteroid crash that wiped out the dinosaurs.  

You can't paint it with a broad generic brush.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 04, 2015, 02:45:36 PM
Only a fool would deny climate change.

And, unfortunately, only a fool would try to change the mind of said fools.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics.  We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics).  If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever.  For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand.  Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response.  Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

So you're asking for a guarantee.  With systems as complex as climate, there is no guarantee about the effectiveness of measures to stop or reverse climate change, and I would expect you know that.  Your argument is disingenuous at that level.  And some scientists argue that reversing climate change in the short term may not be possible, given the length of time CO₂ remains in the atmosphere.  It's bad, and will likely get worse before it gets better.  However, there are very specific ways to reduce the level of greenhouse gases which most climate scientists argue as significant contributors to climate change: clean energy, reforestation, etc.

It's like you're in a room that's filling with water.  If you do nothing, you will drown.  But you're not quite sure the bucket you've been given to bail with is worth the cost.

Extreme weather events are increasing both in number and severity.  Extreme weather events lead to death, disease, financial loss, and political instability; more extreme weather events lead to more of those things.  So if you're worried about money spent, you should probably also worry about the billions or trillions of dollars lost as a result of flooding, drought, and other extreme weather, which is a direct result of climate change.

Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on February 04, 2015, 03:18:48 PM
You're not wrong, but here's the problem: Climate change is likely a cumulative and exponential problem that can't just be "solved". It's going to take YEARS of work to change our behaviors, and we likely won't see huge impacts until years down the road.

But, if we wait around and/or don't address the issues, then it's seriously going to be too late to change.

I should have just agreed with you and saved myself some time.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics.  We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics).  If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever.  For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand.  Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response.  Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bridges and tunnels and trestles and water-carrying pipelines that are seriously in need of repair. To do this, however, is outrageously expensive and it seems we only have money for defense and entitlements. So we are using your system: We won't do it until we know what the tangible results of money we spend on these projects will be. So we wait until a bridge collapses or a tunnel caves in to fix it.

As for the anti-vax crowd ... I wonder how many of these same people were so worried about Ebola getting into the U.S. and wiping us all out. Between the measles, the severe weather and the 2-year-olds shooting their parents with the guns they find in purses, we don't need no stinkin' Ebola to doom us.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
Many educated people in Orange County, not many Fruitcakes in Orange County....the rest of the state....that's another story. 

   Front page of today's LA Times shows where the ant-vaxxers are congregated. Surprise, Surprise  Uber-Liberal West Side and farm worker Ventura County look like leading candidates.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 04, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?

Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics.  We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics).  If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever.  For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand.  Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response.  Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.

I actually agree with you in principle here. But the government should have been doing that for decades with every aspect of government spending. Pay for new tanks that the military said they don't need or want? Pay for a VA hospital computer system that takes years longer and much more $$$ than originally planned? It's all garbage. All of it.

The other problem some have partially addressed is that climate change is a long-term process. But the biggest problem with it is that there will be a point of no return. Are we there yet? Some say yes, some say no. But waiting around isn't exactly helping.

Quote from: jesmu84 on February 04, 2015, 05:58:22 PM
[...]

The other problem some have partially addressed is that climate change is a long-term process. But the biggest problem with it is that there will be a point of no return. Are we there yet? Some say yes, some say no. But waiting around isn't exactly helping.

If yes, then what's the motivation in changing anything. On a long enough timeline everyone's survival rate drops to zero.

http://imgur.com/a/ybBUJ

Quote from: jficke13 on February 04, 2015, 02:57:20 PM
but we'd feel so good doing it.

and less guilty....don't forget the guilt....especially if I can make someone else pay for it to alleviate my guilt. 

Amazing

Quote from: MU82 on February 04, 2015, 04:31:48 PM
We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bridges and tunnels and trestles and water-carrying pipelines that are seriously in need of repair. To do this, however, is outrageously expensive and it seems we only have money for defense and entitlements. So we are using your system: We won't do it until we know what the tangible results of money we spend on these projects will be. So we wait until a bridge collapses or a tunnel caves in to fix it.

As for the anti-vax crowd ... I wonder how many of these same people were so worried about Ebola getting into the U.S. and wiping us all out. Between the measles, the severe weather and the 2-year-olds shooting their parents with the guns they find in purses, we don't need no stinkin' Ebola to doom us.

Of course, but that is always going to be the case.  That's why you have a budget, routine maintenance, etc, to fix those roads.

That is NOT the case with climate change, nor is the cost \ harm on the same level.  We KNOW the bridges need to be fixed as we can see the damage AND we can see what new concrete, or paving, or steel can do.    This is where you analogy falls short.  We have NO IDEA how much money on climate change "fixes" will it take, nor do we even know if it will even work.  PLUS, because the climate always changes and for millions of years has gone into cycles of warming and cooling (there's a reason why Greenland is called Greenland), we don't know if 50 years from now or 10,000 years from now things reverse.  We just don't know.

That's the question.   How many trillions do we want to spend and what do we get out of it?  Especially in a world where not everyone is playing by the same rules.  China "says" they will lower their emissions.....oh, but they have to wait for 20 years before they start....just trust them.   

So I ask, we are going to spend all of this money, etc, and what are we getting for it?  I think it's a fair question.  Shouldn't someone be able to say that by doing all of this we believe we will lower C02 by X and temperature by Y?  No one is willing to put any metrics behind it, but we should just spend away and just trust the process.   No wonder so many people are skeptical.  Where's the accountability?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 06, 2015, 12:47:49 AM


So I ask, we are going to spend all of this money, etc, and what are we getting for it?  I think it's a fair question.  Shouldn't someone be able to say that by doing all of this we believe we will lower C02 by X and temperature by Y?  No one is willing to put any metrics behind it, but we should just spend away and just trust the process.   No wonder so many people are skeptical.  Where's the accountability?

You're absolutely right about this

But we have a pretty good idea about the causes and preventative measures. The only immediate solution is to intensely regulate industry that we know are primary causes

Quote from: MUsoxfan on February 06, 2015, 12:53:51 AM
You're absolutely right about this

But we have a pretty good idea about the causes and preventative measures. The only immediate solution is to intensely regulate industry that we know are primary causes

We also know we are in a 19 year pause right now.....climate is so complex....there are so many things we don't know....many more that we don't know then we do.  That's the scary part for both outcomes.  Meaning, it could get really bad, or it could be nothing at all and things revert.  What's the role of the Sun?  What's the role of the oceans?  How much is man at fault?  What about all the farting cows.  So on and so forth.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 06, 2015, 01:17:36 AM
We also know we are in a 19 year pause right now.....climate is so complex....there are so many things we don't know....many more that we don't know then we do.  That's the scary part for both outcomes.  Meaning, it could get really bad, or it could be nothing at all and things revert.  What's the role of the Sun?  What's the role of the oceans?  How much is man at fault?  What about all the farting cows.  So on and so forth.

I'm aware that the earth has a cyclical nature, but the most recent intense cycle cannot be denied.

So why not make an undoubtedly safe move and fix this the best we can because we don't really know for sure? Oh...right. It would cut into profits of multinational corporations.

We must always cater to the most wealthy

I saw this article this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/04/ben-franklin-lost-a-son-to-smallpox-heres-his-sobering-advice-to-parents-on-immunization/

Ben Franklin lost a son to smallpox. Here's his sobering advice for parents worried about vaccines today.

Ben Franklin lost a 4-year-old son to smallpox. He wrote about the incident in his autobiography nearly a half-century later. His words are keenly relevant to the current national conversation about early childhood vaccines, and are worth a close read:

In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.

Many parents in the 1700s avoided inoculating their children for fear of harming them -- just as a minority of parents today refuse to vaccinate due to a drastic misunderstanding of the potential harms and benefits of a vaccination. Franklin ultimately regretted not inoculating his own son (he did so not out of fear of side effects, but because the boy was sick with another illness at the time).

The incident stuck with him so much that he went on to co-author a how-to guide on smallpox inoculation with a London physician.

As I wrote Tuesday, the incredible success of vaccine programs has afforded us the luxury of indulging in ill-informed skepticism of them. Some 250 years ago, the situation was very different.

(A hat tip to Amy Webb on Twitter).

Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

Quote from: MUsoxfan on February 06, 2015, 01:26:38 AM
I'm aware that the earth has a cyclical nature, but the most recent intense cycle cannot be denied.

So why not make an undoubtedly safe move and fix this the best we can because we don't really know for sure? Oh...right. It would cut into profits of multinational corporations.

We must always cater to the most wealthy

Because to make the meaningful dent in CO2 emissions that activists are calling for then the nation doing so would by definition cripple its competitiveness in an international marketplace leading to an economic depression and a certain overall increase in the suffering of its citizens?

Quote from: jficke13 on February 06, 2015, 08:16:26 AM
Because to make the meaningful dent in CO2 emissions that activists are calling for then the nation doing so would by definition cripple its competitiveness in an international marketplace leading to an economic depression and a certain overall increase in the suffering of its citizens?

Winner winner.

Plus, this idea of "fixing" this....what will be fixed?  Are we lowering temps by what amount for how much?  No one knows and no one will say it, because they don't know.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 06, 2015, 08:37:52 AM
Winner winner.

Plus, this idea of "fixing" this....what will be fixed?  Are we lowering temps by what amount for how much?  No one knows and no one will say it, because they don't know.

Well obviously nobody knows for sure, but I don't know if that's a good reason for not trying.

Quote from: LAZER on February 06, 2015, 08:51:25 AM
Well obviously nobody knows for sure, but I don't know if that's a good reason for not trying.

Should we do so if it triples the cost of energy and all consumer goods produced in the United States?

Quote from: jficke13 on February 06, 2015, 09:00:12 AM
Should we do so if it triples the cost of energy and all consumer goods produced in the United States?

If only it was black and white like that...Unfortunately the US isn't able to even begin the discussion on how to best tackle this issue domestically and globally because we're still stuck on the debate of whether or not it is happening.