The connection between Religion and Climate Change (Denial) - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14688993
Dr House wrote:I have AC, as do 87% of people and 80% of poor people in capitalist 'murica. Fuck your global climate.


Can I assume that you have no rebuttal to my claim that capitalism is the single most important reason why we are doing nothing about climate change?

If so, do you retract your claim that this is all a way for gov'ts to increase their power?

Finally, your editorial about ice caps seems to (deliberately?) confuse area of sea ice with volume of sea ice. And it seems that the author is also plain wrong about how the ice is not melting at the polar caps.
#14688994
Mmk, I'll counter your "takes corporate America's side on every issue" article with a "takes the Beltway bureaucracy's side on every issue" rebuttal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... yre-wrong/

The scientific gist of it is: as land ice melts it flows into the ocean, reducing its salinity and raising the freezing point of water. Also climate change's effects cause increased wind and thus more snowfall. Both combine to mean short-term ice increase around the large landmass of Antarctica. Antarctica is melting, this is a direct effect of it doing so. It's a temporary effect that will be negated once the snow on land is reduced by wind and melts to a tipping point. Meanwhile, NASA, the NOAA, and the UN all report Arctic sea ice and total global sea ice are at record lows, with a rapidly decreasing trajectory.

I also notice no comment on deep-sea die-offs, a direct consequence of heating and rising water. Or, habitat change faster than the species can adapt to. That's the bottom of the food chain. That's what land life relies on.
Last edited by Luna on 13 Jun 2016 11:33, edited 3 times in total.
#14688997
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can I assume that you have no rebuttal to my claim that capitalism is the single most important reason why we are doing nothing about climate change?

Europe is charging ridiculous energy taxes and on both sides of the pond they are tightening emissions standards.

I didn't address that because...

1) Technology is actually solving the problem better and faster than governments could
2) who cares about AGW.
#14689000
Dr House wrote:I didn't address that because...

1) Technology is actually solving the problem better and faster than governments could

And yet the problems persist, so clearly that's not the case. There are technological solutions to the problem, like new forms of energy. Solar, geothermal. They're not cheap, and require long-term political will behind them.

Under our short-term, immediate exchange-value capitalist system, the best technological advance we've gotten on the issue enables us to dig deeper for oil and make our addiction worse. Cool beans.

2) who cares about AGW.

Awesome rebuttal there. You sound extremely serious about the issue and not like a dismissive jerk at all.
Last edited by Luna on 13 Jun 2016 11:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14689001
Dr House wrote:Europe is charging ridiculous energy taxes and on both sides of the pond they are tightening emissions standards.


Ridiculous is not an exact word. It is meant to express your opinion. I am not here to listen to your opinion, but I am here to debate actual facts. Please let me know if you have any.

I am glad that they are tightening emissions standards. This will lead to a dramatic decrease in pulmonary problems for people who,live in cities and near highways and industrial areas.

It may even have a slight effect on climate change.

I didn't address that because...

1) Technology is actually solving the problem better and faster than governments could
2) who cares about AGW.


1) It is? This seems like something you believe without evidence.
2) If you do not care about AGW, then please leave the thread.
#14689002
Luna wrote:Mmk, I'll counter your "takes corporate America's side on every issue" article with a "takes the Beltway bureaucracy's side on every issue" rebuttal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... yre-wrong/

The scientific gist of it is: as land ice melts it flows into the ocean, reducing its salinity and raising the freezing point of water. Also climate change's effects cause increased wind and thus more snowfall. Both combine to mean short-term ice increase. Antarctica is melting, this is a direct effect of it doing so. It's a temporary effect that will be negated once the snow on land is reduced by wind and melts to a tipping point. Meanwhile, NASA, the NOAA, and the UN all report Arctic sea ice and total global sea ice are at record lows, with a rapidly decreasing trajectory.

I also notice no comment on deep-sea die-offs, a direct consequence of heating and rising water. Or, habitat change faster than the species can adapt to. That's the bottom of the food chain. That's what land life relies on.

http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-t ... iation-no/

Apparently, plankton production in the Pacific is higher than ever (as of 2012). Since the Pacific covers 1/3 of the Earth, well...
#14689004
That article is on Fukushima radiation paranoia. Meanwhile, the scientific community generally agrees that climate change poses a risk to plankton populations: http://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidific ... nkton-0720

Your article also only mentions a short-term trend of increase in a set span of a few years, in one specific recorded site. It's intended to allay radiation fears, it is not a repeatedly-tested scientific study. The long-term trend has been a dramatic die-off since 1950, with (shocker) the biggest declines in polar sites: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... opulation/

We're already seeing increased mercury levels in sealife, a recent trend over the past several decades caused by changing water temperatures. A very good way to ultimately kill said sealife. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2013/12 ... dangerous/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410204/
Last edited by Luna on 13 Jun 2016 11:47, edited 2 times in total.
#14689009
Luna wrote:And yet the problems persist, so clearly that's not the case. There are technological solutions to the problem, like new forms of energy. Solar, geothermal. They're not cheap, and require long-term political will behind them.

Under our short-term, immediate exchange-value capitalist system, the best technological advance we've gotten on the issue enables us to dig deeper for oil and make our addiction worse. Cool beans.

Let me tell you something about the cost of energy. It's related to EROEI, Ultimately pollution is waste, which is expensive.

Geothermal energy is not expensive, but it is only available in limited locations. Solar energy requires the use of energy-intensive rare earth minerals, as do (for example) electric cars. Those may not burn CO2 at the front end, but they burn tons of it at the back end, during manufacturing. In fact, an electric car saves roughly... $35 worth of CO2 emissions through its working life, and costs thousands of dollars more.

However, the other thing advancing technology and innovation does that you haven't thought of, is make processes energy-efficient. CO2 emissions from cars and planes have declined so much that cows are about tied with cars as the leading greenhouse gas emitter.

By the way, what problems?

Awesome rebuttal there. You sound extremely serious about the issue and not like a dismissive jerk at all.

I'm not serious about the issue. Why would I be? The IPCC estimates the long-term impact of AGW to be a equivalent to a rounding error, and technology is advancing sufficiently fast that it isn't even that.

The only thing I'm serious about is the very concrete economic damage that environmental alarmism has caused. People in Europe routinely die from not being able to afford to heat their homes in winter, something that doesn't really happen in America except to the very irresponsible.
#14689016
2,000 Americans die a year from weather exposure, vs about 40,000 in the UK alone. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the economic capacity lost to strict environmental rules (70s emissions controls basically set back manufacturing and engine technology in general two decades. The power-to-emissions ratio took until about the late 90s to catch up).
Last edited by Dr House on 13 Jun 2016 12:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14689020
Dr House wrote:Let me tell you something about the cost of energy. It's related to EROEI, Ultimately pollution is waste, which is expensive.

Only if you're held accountable for said waste, ensuring the cost is paid by the polluter. Otherwise the cost is transferred onto the world at large.

Geothermal energy is not expensive, but it is only available in limited locations. Solar energy requires the use of energy-intensive rare earth minerals, as do (for example) electric cars. Those may not burn CO2 at the front end, but they burn tons of it at the back end, during manufacturing. In fact, an electric car saves roughly... $35 worth of CO2 emissions through its working life, and costs thousands of dollars more.

All of which is why government R&D invests in it, to find ways to make it more efficient, until rare earth metals can be procured using clean energy themselves. Geothermal is less ideal because it does also emit CO2, though it's a vastly cleaner source than fossil fuels. Solar is ideal but costly.

I agree that electric cars are mostly an example of greenwashing, so does most of the left. They're a step in the right direction, far from a cure if the electricity is still ultimately procured from fossil fuels, coal, or other climate-destructive energy sources.

However, the other thing advancing technology and innovation does that you haven't thought of, is make processes energy-efficient. CO2 emissions from cars and planes have declined so much that cows are about tied with cars as the leading greenhouse gas emitter.

We haven't seen the observable impact of this, evidently they're not doing enough. Might want to have big bad gubbermint marshal some resources.

By the way, what problems?

Oh cool, a denier website. Totally more trustworthy than NASA, the NOAA, the UN, and the vast bulk of the scientific community. Are you just going to pump out whatever source agrees with your prefabricated position, or what?

But this is a popular claim, so let me give it the attention it's due. Satellite measurements do not measure surface temperature. Likewise, these measurements were taken with satellites funded by Exxon and owned by deniers John Christy and Roy Spencer. Our surface temperature data comes from sources like the NOAA and NASA, and they show accelerating warming.

And to answer your question: the ones already mentioned. Ice cap fluctuations. Phytoplankton shrinkage. These have impacts on how everyone lives, day to day, and ultimately human survival.

Why would I be? The IPCC estimates the long-term impact of AGW to be a equivalent to a rounding error,

The PDF does not say this. So I'm curious about whether you made that up, or the denier source you got that claim and a link you didn't read from did.

and technology is advancing sufficiently fast that it isn't even that.

Again, you've given no proof of this.

The only thing I'm serious about is the very concrete economic damage that environmental alarmism has caused.

And I'm serious about the very concrete damage to life that will happen as a result of climate change. Including, by the way, economic damage with increased natural disasters and formerly habitable places becoming not. The Inland Empire here in California is a big investment that'll go up in smoke.

There's also the economic capacity lost to strict environmental rules (70s emissions controls basically set back manufacturing and engine technology in general two decades. The power-to-emissions ratio took until about the late 90s to catch up).

Boohoo, the pace of growth will have to slow slightly. I'm so angry that we have to actually be careful and show foresight in our development. We might have to have the iBed and the Google Shoes two decades after we otherwise would.
#14689025
Luna wrote:Only if you're held accountable for said waste, ensuring the cost is paid by the polluter. Otherwise the cost is transferred onto the world at large.

You're still not getting it. Pollution is essentially resource-shedding. It is a direct cost. You know how you spend twice as much money for gas on an SUV that gets 18 mpg than a car that gets 36? It's that way for every industrial process and every human activity. So, things that require more fuel to build are more expensive. More expensive = less profitable (because fewer people buy expensive things than cheap things).

We haven't seen the observable impact of this, evidently they're not doing enough.

That's because you're seeing what you want to see. There are areas where the impact is evident. Example: we produce food with less land than ever before, so North America has more trees than it had 100 years ago.

The PDF does not say this.

Actually it does, in much stuffier terms. I editorialized.

What the PDF actually says, in its executive summary, is that "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impact of other drivers", later more concretely stating that the long-term impact is between 0.2 and 2% of income.


Boohoo, the pace of growth will have to slow slightly. I'm so angry that we have to actually be careful and show foresight in our development. We might have to have the iBed and the Google Shoes two decades after we otherwise would.

That should be concerning. Economic development is nowhere near as frivolous as you might think -- the ability of the economy to provide basic necessities depends on its ability to efficiently provide everything. Nikita Khrushchev laughed at America's frivolous luxuries, and lived to regret it.

The reality is the effect of emissions regulation on the economy is unlikely to worsen its outlook in the future (due to current rate of technological change), but the damage is done, and it's pretty massive. Since 1968, the start of the worldwide emissions crackdown, median and bottom-level income growth slowed to a crawl. The fact that despite the slowdown (and consequentially, lost capital for research), industry was able to recover lost ground in about two decades, tells me that it's likely emissions would have declined on their own more quickly, just from increasing efficiency. And there'd be a lot less poverty in America and the world.
#14689028
Dr House wrote:You're still not getting it. Pollution is essentially resource-shedding. It is a direct cost. You know how you spend twice as much money for gas on an SUV that gets 18 mpg than a car that gets 36? It's that way for every industrial process and every human activity. So, things that require more fuel to build are more expensive. More expensive = less profitable (because fewer people buy expensive things than cheap things).

How does this help your case? If the present cost system doesn't adequately address the problem of pollution, that suggests a problem in the system. Externalities exist and are causing major ecological damage. That suggests our current socioeconomic model doesn't address the issue well.


There are areas where the impact is evident. Example: we produce food with less land than ever before, so North America has more trees than it had 100 years ago.

Sure, agriculture modernization has helped in numerous ways, and I'd add in much of the world this was a heavily government-backed project. In any case, this doesn't significantly impact the climate, especially considering ethanol is no cleaner than oil or coal as a fuel.


What the PDF actually says, in its executive summary, is that "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impact of other drivers", later more concretely stating that the long-term impact is between 0.2 and 2% of income.

Note the phrase "relative to the impact of other drivers" and the phrase "for most economic sectors." These are mitigating terms, deliberately used because the IPCC are not making the case that these are insubstantial.

It is also, contrary to what you've claimed, a short-term estimate based on present conditions caused by climate change already and extrapolating their costs into the coming decades. It does not deal with the long-term impacts of rising sea levels, droughts, and the increased frequency of natural disasters. Predictions based on continuing present statistical trends, that have not yet reached the point at which we feel them day-to-day. It thus doesn't adequately handle businesses in places like Hawaii, Florida, or southern California. In short: you've misrepresented what it's looking at.

That should be concerning. Economic development is nowhere near as frivolous as you might think -- the ability of the economy to provide basic necessities depends on its ability to efficiently provide everything.

Including, I'd hope, basic health and safety. Environmental regulations are based around doing that.

Since 1968, the start of the worldwide emissions crackdown, median and bottom-level income growth slowed to a crawl.

A multi-factored issue of which emissions standards are one minor contributing factor. I see no evidence that they're the main or even a very significant cause, considering emissions standards are very high or non-existent in most of the world.

The other factors at play: cartelization of the oil markets, an end to the stabilizing Bretton Woods system, right-to-work laws throughout Europe and the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States shackling labor's ability to press for wage increases, industrial moves to the Third World to dodge labor laws and corporate taxes.
#14689040
Luna wrote:How does this help your case? If the present cost system doesn't adequately address the problem of pollution, that suggests a problem in the system. Externalities exist and are causing major ecological damage. That suggests our current socioeconomic model doesn't address the issue well.

What it tells me is that solutions that aren't implemented because they're expensive, aren't genuine solutions and are just going to make the problem worse -- or cause other problems.

Sure, agriculture modernization has helped in numerous ways. This doesn't significantly impact the climate, especially considering ethanol is no cleaner than oil or coal as a fuel.

It's basically an example (the first one I could think of) of how economic and technological development is ultimately good for the environmemt.

Note the phrase "relative to the impact of other drivers" and the phrase "for most economic sectors." These are mitigating terms, deliberately used because the IPCC are not making the case that these are insubstantial.

Well, a maximum 2% impact over the coming decades sounds pretty insubstantial.

Including, I'd hope, basic health and safety. Environmental regulations are based around doing that.

Health and safety are luxuries with a cost. Economic growth means we can increasingly afford them.

A multi-factored issue of which emissions standards are one minor contributing factor. I see no evidence that they're the main or even a very significant cause, considering emissions standards are very high or non-existent in most of the world. The other factors at play: cartelization of the oil markets, an end to the stabilizing Bretton Woods system, right-to-work laws throughout Europe and the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States shackling labor's ability to press for wage increases, industrial moves to the Third World to dodge labor laws and corporate taxes.

Agree on Bretton-Woods. Agree, largely, on the cartelization of oil, though that only pertains to the oil shock of 1973. Thereafter, the global market share of OPEC oil has been steadily declining, and with it their economic power.

The labor bargaining/leverage argument is plain wrong. Workers had virtually no political leverage in the 19th century, yet unskilled wages doubled and median wages tripled between 1860 and 1910. Further, the ratio of worker vs corporate share of revenue has remained virtually unchanged, nor has it really changed much even since the "robber baron" days.
Labor, ultimately, is a cost, and increases or declines to that cost are offset by either addition/shedding, or increases and declines to the average cost of living.
#14689046
Dr House wrote:What it tells me is that solutions that aren't implemented because they're expensive, aren't genuine solutions and are just going to make the problem worse -- or cause other problems.

Every solution causes other problems. I think it's highly unlikely emissions standards would make climate change worse, it's hard to have a black market in oil refineries.

It would be an expensive solution, and it's a question of time preference. You favor helping peoples' short-term expressed short-term wants through the marketplace. I favor aiding their expressed long-term wants by mustering the political will, expressed time and again in poll after poll, to implement far-reaching energy reform.

It's basically an example (the first one I could think of) of how economic and technological development is ultimately good for the environmemt.

I agree that generally technological development helps the environment, after the initial destructive curve of mass industrialization is settled and you move to greener technologies. And what aids that along further is providing the research and contracts to develop it sooner.

Well, a maximum 2% impact over the coming decades sounds pretty insubstantial.

Based on current changes as of this moment extrapolated cost-wise into the coming decades, and you know it. Again, this does not factor in statistically expected changes that will occur later, which will steadily grow in urgency.

Health and safety are luxuries with a cost. Economic growth means we can increasingly afford them.

Health and safety are necessities before one can do anything else. In a system based first and foremost on meeting humans' expressed needs (e.g. socialism) they're priorities, everything else is a luxury.

The labor bargaining/leverage argument is plain wrong. Workers had virtually no political leverage in the 19th century,

This is veering heavily off-topic, but the widespread membership in active organizations like the Knights of Labor, Socialist Labor Party, and Wobblies, and the rise of labor-driven socialist movements throughout Europe tell a different story. We can quibble about how much the wage increases were the natural effects of growth and how much were due to hard-fought gains by organized labor, but "virtually no political leverage" is a false statement.

Further, the ratio of worker vs corporate share of revenue has remained virtually unchanged, nor has it really changed much even since the "robber baron" days.

The vastly increasing income gap in the United States and flatline of median worker wages as the top rate grows exponentially tells a different story. You have your data sets, I have mine. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting ... tagnation/ and http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -15-years/

I'd trust the Department of Labor-derived stats on this more than I would Business Insider or a right-wing blog calling itself "Unbiased."
#14689056
Luna wrote:Health and safety are necessities before one can do anything else. In a system based first and foremost on meeting humans' expressed needs (e.g. socialism) they're priorities, everything else is a luxury.

Health and safety are things one trades off for living standards -- you can have more of one or more of the other. For example, activities such as oil refinery work and deep-sea fishing are extremely unsafe, and are therefore some of the lucrative professions in America. What I meant is that they're a part of the living-standards equation, and people choose, based on available alternatives, whether they'd rather have more safety or more affluence. With the economy advancing, more people get to choose safety over affluence.

Systems that attempt human needs via suppression of wants lack vision and ultimately are self-destructive, because in reality needs and wants are one and the same -- needs are just generally more urgent. Their urgent nature makes fulfilling them lucrative, and therefore guarantees a high supply (very few investors would dispute that farming is a very good investment, because food is recession-proof).

The vastly increasing income gap in the United States and flatline of median worker wages as the top rate grows exponentially tells a different story. You have your data sets, I have mine. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting ... tagnation/ and http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -15-years/

I'd trust the Department of Labor-derived stats on this more than I would Business Insider or a right-wing blog calling itself "Unbiased."

The Gini coefficient among working people is actually remarkably low. The main driver of inequality is the increasing number of people who don't work/make an income (who make up nearly 2/3 of people in poverty, due perhaps to the steady decline in entrepreneurship.
Last edited by Dr House on 13 Jun 2016 14:14, edited 1 time in total.

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]