The science and nature thread v. We tried this before

[Chino]

  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it."

We could start by voting for people that care more about the planet than the coal and oil industries. We could also focus funds on growing meat in labs rather than having to raise billions of animals per year that require water and feed while producing copious amounts of methane.

And why shouldn't NASA be in the discussion? They are the ones building and launching the instruments to help finally shut up the politicians who constantly say things like "I'm not a scientist" and "The science isn't settled on climate change".

[rumborak]

The real issue is the amount of deception going on. I mean, I understand that a lot of people aren't going to read Nature or Science to stay abreast of climatology.
At this point, people (politicians) saying those things don't simply have "another opinion", they plain deceive their constituency. It's as simple as that.
It would be nice if both sides of the aisle took the same scientific conclusions and from *that on* came up with different ways of tackling the issue. That is indeed how every other country in this world is going about it. They acknowledge the existing of man-made global warming, but may differ on the approaches to tackle it.
Here in the US however a large portion of the public is simply deceived by the people they listen to. And that is sad (and dangerous). You have a guy showing up with a snowball in congress, declaring global warming isn't happening. That is banana republic level of discourse.

[Stadler]

  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it."

We could start by voting for people that care more about the planet than the coal and oil industries. We could also focus funds on growing meat in labs rather than having to raise billions of animals per year that require water and feed while producing copious amounts of methane.

And why shouldn't NASA be in the discussion? They are the ones building and launching the instruments to help finally shut up the politicians who constantly say things like "I'm not a scientist" and "The science isn't settled on climate change".

What happens to all the people that then can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof?  Or who can't convert their homes from oil to some other alternate (and more expensive) form of energy?  Let them die?  That would, of course, reduce the CO2 emissions, but I don't think that was where you were going.  What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes that sound so easy but have real world consequences. 

It's not "coal and oil industries".  That's the easy, clichéd, and fashionable (but logically fallable) answer.   It's humans.  The tragedy of the commons. 

[Chino]

For fucks sake. I'm not saying flip a switch over night. I'm not that stupid. We probably need 50-100 years to get this nation's infrastructure where it needs to be.

Can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof? Why are we automatically assuming prices are going to skyrocket? Current prices fluctuate because of supply and demand. The sun is going to remain constant.

Can't convert your house? Fine. It will eventually be knocked down and replaced by a modern house. Life really did suck for all those natives that couldn't convert their wigwams to structures that would meet today's building codes.




What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes......

What's going to happen to all those steam engine makers once the internal cumbustion engine becomes mainstream?
What's going to happen to all the log companies once people start using gas and electric heat rather than their fire place?
What's going to happen to all the people in top hat factories once people stop wearing top hats?
What's going to happen to all the telephone operators once we no longer need to manually connect every call?
What's going to happen to all Vinyl companies once more compact storage options are available?
What's going to happen to the phone book companies now that numbers can be googled?
What's going to happen to the people that make tubes for TVs once DLP and plasma take off?
What's going to happen to all of the accountants when computer software can take their place?
What's going to happen to all of those plant workers once robots start building the cars?
What's going to happen to all the people that work at Kodak once digital cameras become the norm?
What's going to happen to the post office once email is in every home?
What's going to happen to all of those file clerks once harddrives are invented?
What's going to happen to all of those sewing machine operators once automated sewing machines come out?
What's going to happen to all the internal cumpustion engine makers once electric motors become dominant?

[rumborak]

What happens to all the people that then can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof?  Or who can't convert their homes from oil to some other alternate (and more expensive) form of energy?  Let them die?  That would, of course, reduce the CO2 emissions, but I don't think that was where you were going.  What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes that sound so easy but have real world consequences. 

It's not "coal and oil industries".  That's the easy, clichéd, and fashionable (but logically fallable) answer.   It's humans.  The tragedy of the commons. 

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!

[Stadler]

The real issue is the amount of deception going on. I mean, I understand that a lot of people aren't going to read Nature or Science to stay abreast of climatology.
At this point, people (politicians) saying those things don't simply have "another opinion", they plain deceive their constituency. It's as simple as that.
It would be nice if both sides of the aisle took the same scientific conclusions and from *that on* came up with different ways of tackling the issue. That is indeed how every other country in this world is going about it. They acknowledge the existing of man-made global warming, but may differ on the approaches to tackle it.
Here in the US however a large portion of the public is simply deceived by the people they listen to. And that is sad (and dangerous). You have a guy showing up with a snowball in congress, declaring global warming isn't happening. That is banana republic level of discourse.

I'm repeating myself, but at least here in the States, the people who want everyone to admit that we're at 2 minutes to midnight on global warming, and that it is 126% caused by man would have a much better shot if it wasn't for comments like above ("let's tax the crap out of "BIG ENERGY").  It's easy for a country of population 11 million and $430 billion GDP (Belgium; US is 330 million and $2.3 TRILLION) to call for economic responses.  It's another thing entirely to bully them into accepting politically unpalatable solutions (which aren't unique, by the way) by calling them stupid.

I am under no standard, objective or subjective, "stupid", and yet even I bristle at the ham-handed attempts of people like Al Gore and Bill Nye to use "science" as a hammer to force their political opinions down our throats. 

[rumborak]

Too much ninja-ing going on right now. I'll just repost what I had posted above:

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!

EDIT: For example, looking at the current conservative candidate lineup, where is the candidate for your stance? To my knowledge they are all climate/evolution deniers. I remember there was Jon Huntsman 4 years ago who acknowledged global warming, but he was immediately axed.

[Stadler]

What's going to happen to all those steam engine makers once the internal cumbustion engine becomes mainstream?
What's going to happen to all the log companies once people start using gas and electric heat rather than their fire place?
What's going to happen to all the people in top hat factories once people stop wearing top hats?
What's going to happen to all the telephone operators once we no longer need to manually connect every call?
What's going to happen to all Vinyl companies once more compact storage options are available?
What's going to happen to the phone book companies now that numbers can be googled?
What's going to happen to the people that make tubes for TVs once DLP and plasma take off?
What's going to happen to all of the accountants when computer software can take their place?
What's going to happen to all of those plant workers once robots start building the cars?
What's going to happen to all the people that work at Kodak once digital cameras become the norm?
What's going to happen to the post office once email is in every home?
What's going to happen to all of those file clerks once harddrives are invented?
What's going to happen to all of those sewing machine operators once automated sewing machines come out?
What's going to happen to all the internal cumpustion engine makers once electric motors become dominant?

...an argument I've made a thousand times.   

Except, the argument isn't commutative.  All of those were (or had) efficiencies that offset any temporary downsides.  All of those were (or are) inevitable replacements of old technology at the time the market allowed.   Wind and solar will be in that list in due time.   Sewing maching operators were replaced not because of government mandate and subject to penalty.  Finally, no one died when email replaced snail mail. 

Where many people have beef is not with the inevitable march of technology; where many people have beef is having the same politicians you rag on for having their head in the sand now determining what the impact will be to our economy and our place in the world economy.  It was bad enough on Obamacare (which had limited international impact).   What did Nancy Pelosi say on that?   "We have to pass this bill to find out what is in it!".  Mofo, please.   

[Stadler]

Too much ninja-ing going on right now. I'll just repost what I had posted above:

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!

EDIT: For example, looking at the current conservative candidate lineup, where is the candidate for your stance? To my knowledge they are all climate/evolution deniers. I remember there was Jon Huntsman 4 years ago who acknowledged global warming, but he was immediately axed.

But I've said this here, and elsewhere.  I don't know any of those candidates personally.  I don't know what they say behind closed doors.  So I am not talking about them specifically.   But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue") not because I am a "denier", but because to concede that point is to AUTOMATICALLY concede the responses.   What's happening on the national level is that saying "yes, global warming exists", is to de facto say "yes, I agree with carbon taxation, and increased penalties against energy producers".  And I don't.  And I feel strongly enough about that that I am willing for someone to think I am a "denier" if that's what it takes.   Kyoto is a fantastic example of this.  That treaty was a TRADE treaty, nothing more.  And I am vociferously against that.  If that means you think I am a "denier", so be it. 

[rumborak]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?

[Chino]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

[rumborak]

Chino, I don't know whether this cynicism is helping anybody. Stadler is a totally reasonable guy, and cynicism like that is only alienating people.

[Stadler]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?

I've been very clear why:   because despite Chino's sarcasm (which is exactly what I'm talking about, but doesn't bother me on a personal level) shows clearly that people - even the adherents to "SCIENCE" (in Charlton Heston booming voice) can't separate the science from the politics.    Mock economics all you want (it's almost de rigueur these days) but look at how many people were severely and perhaps permanently damaged with the mortgage crisis.  Even people who didn't have mortgages!  Now imagine that kind of correction with the third largest industry in the United States and one of the largest industries in the world.   

This notion that we can ignore economics (i.e. reality) because of "science" (and no, "catastrophic" is NOT settled science, even if the trending is) is limousine liberalism of the ultimate kind.  There are entire COUNTRIES whose people will survive or die based on the price of oil.   The advocates are screaming "science!" and "logic!" then utterly ignoring at least the "logic" part entirely when it suits them.   Yeah, a lot of Ma Bell employees had to find new work when cell phones came out, that's progress, but that had nowt effect on Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, etc.

I also find it ironic that many of the people screaming loudest about "GLOBAL WARMING" politics (not science) would be some of the first to say (albeit wrongly) that Bush - leader of the most advanced country in world and with the largest economy in the world - invaded Iraq solely for oil.  So it's "important" when it suits you, but it's poo-pooable when it doesn't?

This is why I say that.     

[Stadler]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).

[Chino]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).

Here's my problem with your line of thinking on this. All the points you are making are completely valid and are legitimate concerns. These changes will without a doubt fuck some shit up along the way. It will be very shitty. That being said, your arguments today will be the exact same arguments a century from now, and a century after that. This issue can be prolonged indefinitely, literally until we run out of oil to pump from the ground.

These nations whose economies rely on oil, what'd they rely on before they started selling it? I'm seriously asking. If it was a good or service that disappeared, they found oil to fill the niche. It probably sucked as they were transitioning from one to the other, but they figured it out. They'll have to figure it out this time as well. If they had a good thing going and switched to oil just because of the money it could generate, then they could temporarily revert back to whatever it was that was making them money prior to selling the oil while they figure out something more lucrative. Also, it's not our fault that these countries found one thing to make them money and put all of their eggs in one basket. There have been warning signs for decades that oil with one day be phased out. If not due to lack of demand, it will be because we run out. What do these people do then?

What good will it be postponing worldwide green infrastructure if the countries we were trying to save economically can no longer survive because of hostile living conditions or displacement?

[rumborak]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?

I've been very clear why:   because despite Chino's sarcasm (which is exactly what I'm talking about, but doesn't bother me on a personal level) shows clearly that people - even the adherents to "SCIENCE" (in Charlton Heston booming voice) can't separate the science from the politics.    Mock economics all you want (it's almost de rigueur these days) but look at how many people were severely and perhaps permanently damaged with the mortgage crisis.  Even people who didn't have mortgages!  Now imagine that kind of correction with the third largest industry in the United States and one of the largest industries in the world.   

This notion that we can ignore economics (i.e. reality) because of "science" (and no, "catastrophic" is NOT settled science, even if the trending is) is limousine liberalism of the ultimate kind.  There are entire COUNTRIES whose people will survive or die based on the price of oil.   The advocates are screaming "science!" and "logic!" then utterly ignoring at least the "logic" part entirely when it suits them.   Yeah, a lot of Ma Bell employees had to find new work when cell phones came out, that's progress, but that had nowt effect on Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, etc.

I also find it ironic that many of the people screaming loudest about "GLOBAL WARMING" politics (not science) would be some of the first to say (albeit wrongly) that Bush - leader of the most advanced country in world and with the largest economy in the world - invaded Iraq solely for oil.  So it's "important" when it suits you, but it's poo-pooable when it doesn't?

This is why I say that.   

You have completely evaded answering what counts as an imminent threat to you, and whether you disagree that the current scientific assessment of the situation would count as such.
If anything, *you* are the one dragging a, what should be objective, assessment into political territory. Whether there is a danger or not has *zero* to do with markets or Bushes.

[Stadler]

But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).

Here's my problem with your line of thinking on this. All the points you are making are completely valid and are legitimate concerns. These changes will without a doubt fuck some shit up along the way. It will be very shitty. That being said, your arguments today will be the exact same arguments a century from now, and a century after that. This issue can be prolonged indefinitely, literally until we run out of oil to pump from the ground.

Fair point, Chino, and for many you are right.  For me, though, not really.  I have no vested interest in oil or gas or fossil fuel or whatever else.  I really don't.  And there are many others who don't.   I can't (and won't) speak for Exxon, but I can tell you there are companies out there (Siemens, GE) that don't either.  I guarantee you (and I have insight into this) that Siemens and GE couldn't care less about fossil fuel.  The second - and I mean, literally, the very second - that it becomes cheaper and more efficient to operate a freight train using something other than fossil fuel and they will be there with bells on. It's going to happen.  It's happening already.  Punishing industries that we (read, you) don't think share our "moral imperative" (which is silly, because corporations are only tools to be used) isn't the way to go.  I can write a treatise about how the environmental movement tried "punishment" and it didn't work; it was only when regulators realized that it wasn't sinful to allow people to actually make money on contaminated properties that they started to be cleaned up.  Now, your local Dunkin Donuts was probably an environmentally regulated property 15 years ago. 

These nations whose economy rely on oil, what'd they rely on before they started selling it? I'm seriously asking. If it was a good or service that disappeared, they found oil to fill the niche. It probably sucked as they were transitioning from one to the other, but they figured it out. If they had a good thing going and switched to oil just because of the money it could generate, then they could temporarily revert back to whatever it was that was making them money prior to selling the oil. Also, it is not our fault that these companies found one thing to make them money and put all of their eggs in one basket. There have been warning signs for decades that oil with one day be phased out. If not due to lack of demand, it will be because we run out. What do these people do then?

Some, nothing.   Some, survived on the largess of others, but were simply pawns in a global game of "Risk".  First the Roman empire, then Prussia, then the Soviet Union.  Or perhaps China.  I'm not sure it's relevant; but we're not talking about incremental change here, we're talking transformational change.   The railroads being supplanted by the airlines didn't change the fact that most of the Soviet Union still to this day relies on rail for commercial transport (as does the US).

Also what you're missing is that the "oil" companies will rebrand as "energy" companies.  A couple have tried, and the proof is in the pudding:  it's still a better business model to sell fossil fuel than have alternate energy products that look great, answer the global warming bell (conceptually) but sit on the shelf because they do not allow others - not BIG ENERGY - to continue to do business.  But none of those companies are going to sit there and say "Oh well, it was a good run.  Turn out the lights, we're done.". 

What good will it be postponing worldwide green infrastructure if the countries we were trying to save economically can no longer survive because of hostile living conditions or displacement?

But I'm not suggesting "postponing" anything.  I'm suggesting we don't ram it down people's throats because it "sounds good" to one slice of the demographic without considering all the variables.   I don't disagree with any of your conceptual points; I disagree with the arbitrary and self-serving valuation of ONE variable at the expense of all others (and the exclusion of several outright).    I get that Bush is not the guy to be referenced in a discussion like this, but he did one thing right:  back in 2004, the EPA implemented emissions standards, in tiers.   Tier III was achievable, but it was a stretch, and it was expensive.  At the time, Tier IV was a pipe dream.  The technology didn't exist, and there was no line of sight to it.    But - at least in the rail industry - the major manufacturers tackled it.  And lo and behold, one major player rolled out their first Tier IV locomotive not long ago, in advance of the deadline.  And they have a healthy market, they'll make decent money on that, and they have changed the industry by raising the bar, and global warming gets a small bite taken out of it. 

I like you, Chino, I think you're smart and you're willing to consider points of view different than yours.  I respect that. But many don't; it's as much a chance to take another swipe at "BIG [Insert industry]" as it is any altruistic endeavor to save the planet.  There are two developments in modern politics that I abhor:  'red state/blue state' and "BIG [Insert industry]"  Neither one helps the situation, and neither one leads to solutions, only to more divisiveness. 

[bosk1]

Pretty cool discovery of a new crab species that lives in a VERY limited environment:  https://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/new-species-of-yeti-crab-has-odd-living-arrangements/#SXoUwb8gScyfGkAC.97

[Zook]

Pretty cool discovery of a new crab species that lives in a VERY limited environment:  https://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/new-species-of-yeti-crab-has-odd-living-arrangements/#SXoUwb8gScyfGkAC.97

Looks like a tick.

[bosk1]

Actually...yeah, kinda.  The most fascinating thing to me is the environment they live in.

[gmillerdrake]

Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[BlobVanDam]

The comments are hurting my brain.

[gmillerdrake]

The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious

[rumborak]

Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wild claim pretty much. I'll wait to see what the other scientists make of the paper.

[gmillerdrake]

Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wild claim pretty much. I'll wait to see what the other scientists make of the paper.

I was thinking if this were indeed the case it'd have made a little more noise?

[BlobVanDam]

The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious

A climate related article, I'm sure you can guess.

I am curious to see what the wider scientific community makes of this theory.

[Nick]

The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious

A climate related article, I'm sure you can guess.

I am curious to see what the wider scientific community makes of this theory.

You know what would be the worst part about this being true?

A bunch of climate change deniers chanting, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU" , when it gets colder due to a completely unrelated event.

Not the years of horrible winters, but that.

[Stadler]

You know what would be the worst part about this being true?

A bunch of climate change deniers chanting, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU" , when it gets colder due to a completely unrelated event.

Not the years of horrible winters, but that.

No, but as someone who isn't a denier, but is adamantly against the sort of "knee jerk, let's-do-anything-possible just because it sounds good" reaction that most climate change conversations devolve to, it does suggest that perhaps the world is a) more complex, and b) more resilient than some of the people who are using "climate change" for political gain would have you believe.   

Man is good, man is smart, but man is fallible. 

[Chino]

I agree and disagree. I don't consider much of what we are seeing in terms of government intervention as a knee jerk reaction. A knee jerk reaction would be if tomorrow the state of NY announced they were building a 40 foot high wall around Manhattan regardless of cost.

The government calling for things like stricter restrictions on carbon emissions, more sustainable energy sources, and all around going greener isn't a bad thing, nor do I think it's a knee jerk reaction. Let's say every computer model and 97% of scientists supporting climate change is wrong, the planet will still be much better off. It kind of sucks that we need to attach the whole global warming thing to these changes when our health and well being should be enough. That being said, this is still an urgent matter. Even if the models are incorrect, there should be a real sense of urgency to prove them wrong. That way we could move on.

Here's where I have real issue.

Let's look at Lamar Smith. He's a republican representative from Texas. This man is on the House Science Committee. He has repeatedly talked about how the science isn't settled on climate change and has said "Climate change is an issue that needs to be discussed thoughtfully and objectively". Okay fine. There is a guy on the science committe that believes in discussing issues in a mature fashion and personal biases should not factor into one's decisions (aka, do science). So, in the most logical fashion, Mr. Smith decides to introduce a bill that cuts $300million from NASA's Earth science budget. SO on one hand the guy talks like he's willing to settle the science on climate change once and for all, and on the other hand, he defunds the one of the only agencies that's capable of doing that.

I understand not wanting to jump the gun and spend money we don't have, but how long are we going to do this dance? In 1980, Carl Sagan said "The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2 into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possiblity of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful; Even a one- or two-degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences". So this ins't a new concept. For nearly 40 years now, the oil and gas industry has been spent billions of dollars preventing any changes to legislation that could effect their bottom line.

It's not like the idea of global warming was proposed three years ago and now the whole world is freaking out. We are going on nearly a half century of scientists warning us of the reprocussions of a runaway greenhouse effect. When is enough science going to be enough science?

[rumborak]

If we're talking about money, it is also *very* good business and economic sense to be at the forefront of renewables etc. Everybody knows that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, only the most sheltered representative will claim otherwise. You can sit and watch countries like China and Germany take all the business that comes with it, or you can be part of it.

[rumborak]

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

[Stadler]

But both Rumborak and Chino have elements of truth, but are missing the connector.   

Having US companies unilaterally required to spend billions of dollars to meet stricter emissions because it "sounds good" and "might - just might! - make a dent" is stupid.  It doesn't effect the changes the zealots say it will and it economically disadvantages US businesses.  The impact? They'll leave in droves, compounding the problem.  This was the problem with Kyoto; it was effectively an economic treaty that was great for China and Russia, BAD for the US and a select group of western countries, and neutral for the rest of the world. 

I wish I could tell you the timing, but I am not the Great Kreskin, so I can't.  But there will be a breakthrough, like the steam engine, flight, transistors, or atomic power, and we WILL have solar and wind that is cheaper and more easily transmitted than energy produced by fossil fuels, and companies like Exxon and Shell will step all over their dicks to be "energy companies" not "fuel" or "oil" companies.   They will not go out of business on principle.  Some companies, GE is one, are even now straddling the line.  It will change, and without penalizing "BIG [Insert industry]" and without anti-market economic restrictions masquerading as "feel good green initiatives". 

[CDrice]

I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I have no idea if it would actually work, but it seems like it could be a decent middle ground between those wanting to destroy the ''Big industries'' and those who want to keep the status quo.

[rumborak]

I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I assume you heard of tax breaks for electric and hybrid vehicles, right? That's exactly what that is.

[Stadler]

I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I assume you heard of tax breaks for electric and hybrid vehicles, right? That's exactly what that is.

But those are for the consumers (though those vehicles are already pretty heavily subsidized).  With that, you have to have a product already to incent the people to buy. 

I have no idea if it would actually work, but it seems like it could be a decent middle ground between those wanting to destroy the ''Big industries'' and those who want to keep the status quo.

I think for me, it is imperative we break the paradigms of "destroy" and "status quo".  I want neither.  I don't want "status quo" any more than I want to drive energy prices through the roof by putting the oil companies out of business.  That's the old way - or rather, the advocacy way - of thinking.   I am more than happy to buy my (future) solar panels from Exxon.  Or buy my mini-packaged nuclear reactor from Shell.    Sure, some companies will only go kicking and screaming, and that's on them.  But the smart ones are going to go in the direction where it makes the most sense to make the most money for the longest period of time.  It's that simple.  Corporations are like puppies; they are predictable and they are compliant, IF you know the right way of motivating their behavior.  Continually "attacking" them and "browbeating" them on moral terms is not the way to do it.  Never was, and never will be.