LongHaul Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Will Climate Change really be such a NET negative in 50-100 years that I should be concerned about it OR is it some nutty recent environmental ideology where humans have joined in massive group think/crowd psychology and should just be ignored? Climate Change as a problem is in the news almost everyday. I actually care a lot for the environment in a lot of ways and like clean air, water, etc. Curious on everyone's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 This should keep you busy for a while if you follow the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Will Climate Change really be such a NET negative in 50-100 years that I should be concerned about it OR is it some nutty recent environmental ideology where humans have joined in massive group think/crowd psychology and should just be ignored? Climate Change as a problem is in the news almost everyday. I actually care a lot for the environment in a lot of ways and like clean air, water, etc. Curious on everyone's thoughts. Things should start to improve from here. A few weeks ago, Trump issued an executive order or something like that to prevent the climate change scientists to review and approve their own funding, which makes total sense to me as it is a conflict of interest. As long as someone can review his own research grant, his research will never end in an objective way. No one wants to lose his job by losing his grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Fair point on the really bad effects and unknowns. I agree also, if it doesn't cost anything we should do it. Climate change primary,secondary effects seem very hard to estimate and predict 100 years out. It would likely be gradual - not a sudden tsunami or anything though. There could also be very large benefits that are not talked about much. Warmer temps in much of the colder climates and ability to grow more food there, perhaps less net deaths from warmer weather in the winter, net actually much better for the environment if plants can have more CO2 and grow faster, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Fair point on the really bad effects and unknowns. I agree also, if it doesn't cost anything we should do it. Climate change primary,secondary effects seem very hard to estimate and predict 100 years out. It would likely be gradual - not a sudden tsunami or anything though. There could also be very large benefits that are not talked about much. Warmer temps in much of the colder climates and ability to grow more food there, perhaps less net deaths from warmer weather in the winter, net actually much better for the environment if plants can have more CO2 and grow faster, etc. Sure the effects are gradual, but we also might not know the effect of the marginal ton of carbon we put in the atmosphere today until 20 years out. That's the other side of the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Will Climate Change really be such a NET negative in 50-100 years that I should be concerned about it OR is it some nutty recent environmental ideology where humans have joined in massive group think/crowd psychology and should just be ignored? Climate Change as a problem is in the news almost everyday. I actually care a lot for the environment in a lot of ways and like clean air, water, etc. Curious on everyone's thoughts. I think your premise is wrong--> asking random people on an investment website about scientific questions. A LOT of work has been done in the scientific community regarding the effects of climate change on sea level rise, ecosystems, agriculture, etc., etc. Seek that out instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Am I missing something? Relatively costless policy changes???? Aren't the proposals massively costly? In the trillions in terms of the US economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Will Climate Change really be such a NET negative in 50-100 years that I should be concerned about it OR is it some nutty recent environmental ideology where humans have joined in massive group think/crowd psychology and should just be ignored? Climate Change as a problem is in the news almost everyday. I actually care a lot for the environment in a lot of ways and like clean air, water, etc. Curious on everyone's thoughts. https://gph.is/g/ajyDRG9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tede02 Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Am I missing something? Relatively costless policy changes???? Aren't the proposals massively costly? In the trillions in terms of the US economy. The real question is what are the costs of doing nothing? If sea levels were to rise 10-20 feet, CAT 5 hurricanes become the norm, more extreme droughts, etc., what is the price tag of that? Additionally, if you read about mass extinctions throughout world history, it's commonly theorized that sudden climate change (warming and cooling) has been a major factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event. This isn't a 50-100 year problem (more like 50-100 million yrs), but illustrative of the potential scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Will Climate Change really be such a NET negative in 50-100 years that I should be concerned about it OR is it some nutty recent environmental ideology where humans have joined in massive group think/crowd psychology and should just be ignored? Climate Change as a problem is in the news almost everyday. I actually care a lot for the environment in a lot of ways and like clean air, water, etc. Curious on everyone's thoughts. Things should start to improve from here. A few weeks ago, Trump issued an executive order or something like that to prevent the climate change scientists to review and approve their own funding, which makes total sense to me as it is a conflict of interest. As long as someone can review his own research grant, his research will never end in an objective way. No one wants to lose his job by losing his grant. So people with expertise in biology shouldn't review biology research grants? Medical doctors shouldn't review medical research? Surgeons shouldn't review new procedures? Physicists shouldn't review CERN proposals? Engineers shouldn't review engineering R&D projects? I'm sure this isn't just an executive order that was written by fossil fuel lobbyists and put on his desk... Gotta love the shameless double-standard of cranking skepticism to 11 when it comes to scientists, people not known to be chasing money and power and usually constantly trying to scrape by some funding for research, people who write down everything they do black on white for anyone to look at and understand/criticize, while trusting politicians getting hundreds of millions from people who have a direct financial interests worth hundreds of billions in delaying and denying any restriction on pollution. Very dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooskinneejs Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Experts have been predicting climate catastrophes for decades and I'm still waiting for one to come true. See this link for some fascinating examples... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1109923374568890368.html If we can't predict the weather next week with a high degree of accuracy, I have a hard time believing we can predict the weather 100 years from now. It's ridiculous that everything is now being blamed on global warming climate change: hot spell - climate change, cold spell - climate change, dry season - climate change, wet season - climate change. I remember after hurricane Katrina, experts predicted that due to 'global warming' we were going to start seeing major hurricanes regularly. And then we had no major storms for many years. It doesn't matter how inaccurate their predictions are, the experts just keep right along forecasting doom and becoming ever more fervent each year. We now have young people pledging not to reproduce because they don't want them to suffer through end times that are just around the corner. It's really a sad state of affairs that so many otherwise rational people have joined the doomsday cult that is 'climate change.' I'll make a prediction on this topic though. 11 years from now, when the world doesn't end as AOC has predicted, she'll have a new and improved forecast that says the world is still going to end but that it will just be another 12 years out. Gotta keep the fear mongering strong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 The fact that there is a risk of catastrophic disaster is enough to pay attention. Even scientists dont know exactly how melting of the ice caps could increase tempretures or how tempreture increase will effect the gulf stream. Considering a catastrophic effect which will drastically alter our lives (or future generations) has a small but non-zero chance of happening, taking small relatively costless policy changes seems like a prudent decision to make. Am I missing something? Relatively costless policy changes???? Aren't the proposals massively costly? In the trillions in terms of the US economy. There is no enforcement mechanism for the paris climate agreement. But the US joining would encourage other more interested parties to cut emissions. Very definition of costless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Experts have been predicting climate catastrophes for decades and I'm still waiting for one to come true. See this link for some fascinating examples... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1109923374568890368.html If we can't predict the weather next week with a high degree of accuracy, I have a hard time believing we can predict the weather 100 years from now. It's ridiculous that everything is now being blamed on global warming climate change: hot spell - climate change, cold spell - climate change, dry season - climate change, wet season - climate change. I remember after hurricane Katrina, experts predicted that due to 'global warming' we were going to start seeing major hurricanes regularly. And then we had no major storms for many years. It doesn't matter how inaccurate their predictions are, the experts just keep right along forecasting doom and becoming ever more fervent each year. We now have young people pledging not to reproduce because they don't want them to suffer through end times that are just around the corner. It's really a sad state of affairs that so many otherwise rational people have joined the doomsday cult that is 'climate change.' I'll make a prediction on this topic though. 11 years from now, when the world doesn't end as AOC has predicted, she'll have a new and improved forecast that says the world is still going to end but that it will just be another 12 years out. Gotta keep the fear mongering strong! So this is a problem with the scientific community and the media. Basically only the most dire forecasts were reported on because that drew attention. Then of course scientists responded to those incentives in their research. Thus I think conservatives were expecting global warming to be this day after tomorrow event, which never happened. However there is little question that hurricanes are getting stronger, doughts more frequent and fires harder to fight. Is that mean billions are becoming climate refugees, no. But current costs are calculable and reasonable measures to pick the low hanging fruit that passes cost benefit analysis should be undertaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 "However there is little question that hurricanes are getting stronger, doughts more frequent and fires harder to fight." More statements with zero proof in reality nor in historical facts. By the way, if that is such an immediate danger why has Obama just bought a large mansion by the water? Or Al Gore in 2010 in California after warning the world that California would be submerged in 2020? https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/barack-michelle-obama-vacation-house-photos-36641142 https://me.me/i/al-gore-spends-almost-9-000-000-on-ocean-front-property-in-295dd91986ee49429b34419c4970d99a I can't believe that people are still falling for this bs. Sherlock Holmes was right: follow the money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 "However there is little question that hurricanes are getting stronger, doughts more frequent and fires harder to fight." More statements with zero proof in reality nor in historical facts. By the way, if that is such an immediate danger why has Obama just bought a large mansion by the water? Or Al Gore in 2010 in California after warning the world that California would be submerged in 2020? https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/barack-michelle-obama-vacation-house-photos-36641142 https://me.me/i/al-gore-spends-almost-9-000-000-on-ocean-front-property-in-295dd91986ee49429b34419c4970d99a I can't believe that people are still falling for this bs. Sherlock Holmes was right: follow the money! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes I'll follow up with droughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 "However there is little question that hurricanes are getting stronger, doughts more frequent and fires harder to fight." More statements with zero proof in reality nor in historical facts. By the way, if that is such an immediate danger why has Obama just bought a large mansion by the water? Or Al Gore in 2010 in California after warning the world that California would be submerged in 2020? https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/barack-michelle-obama-vacation-house-photos-36641142 https://me.me/i/al-gore-spends-almost-9-000-000-on-ocean-front-property-in-295dd91986ee49429b34419c4970d99a I can't believe that people are still falling for this bs. Sherlock Holmes was right: follow the money! droughts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581818303136 Note I tried to use sources that were as good as possible but also as far removed from global warming as well so you are just getting the raw data. Obviously doughts are very much tied to increase in temperatures. From a couple minutes of searching best i could come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 "However there is little question that hurricanes are getting stronger, doughts more frequent and fires harder to fight." More statements with zero proof in reality nor in historical facts. By the way, if that is such an immediate danger why has Obama just bought a large mansion by the water? Or Al Gore in 2010 in California after warning the world that California would be submerged in 2020? https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/barack-michelle-obama-vacation-house-photos-36641142 https://me.me/i/al-gore-spends-almost-9-000-000-on-ocean-front-property-in-295dd91986ee49429b34419c4970d99a I can't believe that people are still falling for this bs. Sherlock Holmes was right: follow the money! wildfires: https://www.sciline.org/evidence-blog/wildfires again note the statement of facts and lack of global warming influncing their discussion of trends in the summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Doesn't take a lot of research to demonstrate that hurricanes frequency and severity for example has almost zero correlation to so called warmest years on record. Any investor in Fairfax or any cat exposed insurer would know that between 2005 and 2016 there has been none, zero hurricane landing in Florida. I mean not large ones or category 4 but, none at all! "Hurricane Hermine made landfall near the Big Bend of Florida, making it the first hurricane landfall to the state since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Many counties received flooding up to nine feet due to river swelling." Hurricanes hitting Florida is as common as a snowstorm in Minnesota. This 10 year period was absolutely shocking to these investors as they were expecting a continuation of really nasty 2004 and 2005 combined with prediction of warmer oceans generating even more hurricanes. Maybe that these 10 years were the coolest of all times? Ask Ericopoly about his sleepless nights in 2006 when he made his first mega win with options on Fairfax. Thank goodness climate change was wrong because if not Ericopoly would still be a regular employee at Microsoft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted October 17, 2019 Author Share Posted October 17, 2019 Cardboard posted this in another discussion. Definitely worth watching as stats are manipulated and he shows how. It does feel like some there is some type of climate change cult and it would very helpful to have data that is not fraudulent in some cases. I just don't think it is a big deal if the average temperature rises 1-2 degrees in 100 yrs. A bit more hurricanes or sea level we can deal with. I live in Texas and it is very hot in the summer - we get by. Fear sells papers. But I may be wrong on not seeing the long term effects. Either way there are people dying today from solvable problems so I think those areas - clean water, sanitation, vaccines are better to focus on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Doesn't take a lot of research to demonstrate that hurricanes frequency and severity for example has almost zero correlation to so called warmest years on record. Any investor in Fairfax or any cat exposed insurer would know that between 2005 and 2016 there has been none, zero hurricane landing in Florida. I mean not large ones or category 4 but, none at all! "Hurricane Hermine made landfall near the Big Bend of Florida, making it the first hurricane landfall to the state since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Many counties received flooding up to nine feet due to river swelling." Hurricanes hitting Florida is as common as a snowstorm in Minnesota. This 10 year period was absolutely shocking to these investors as they were expecting a continuation of really nasty 2004 and 2005 combined with prediction of warmer oceans generating even more hurricanes. Maybe that these 10 years were the coolest of all times? Ask Ericopoly about his sleepless nights in 2006 when he made his first mega win with options on Fairfax. Thank goodness climate change was wrong because if not Ericopoly would still be a regular employee at Microsoft! Yes you are using an anecdote and I'm discussing real data from 1900-2017. Between 1938 and 1953 no Catagory 5 hurricane occurred. Between 1961 and 1967 the same thing. 1980-1988... Thus it's not rare that category 5s don't appear once every 10 years. Of course, there will be noise year. But you look at long term data: between 1886-2005 there was an average of 9 hurricanes a year. In 1945-2005 11 hurricanes per year, in 1990-2010 14 hurricanes per year. Of course, you get variation across time but the trends stay consistent. source: http://la.climatologie.free.fr/cyclone/hurricane1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Cardboard posted this in another discussion. Definitely worth watching as stats are manipulated and he shows how. It does feel like some there is some type of climate change cult and it would very helpful to have data that is not fraudulent in some cases. The description of "fraudulent" is unsubstantiated as I correctly explain here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/climate-change-flawed-statistics/msg384557/#msg384557 Either way there are people dying today from solvable problems so I think those areas - clean water, sanitation, vaccines are better to focus on. Yes but if certain forms of energy extraction are (1) more environmentally neutral and (2) comparable in cost, it makes sense to transition towards those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 "Yes you are using an anecdote and I'm discussing real data from 1900-2017. Between 1938 and 1953 no Catagory 5 hurricane occurred. Between 1961 and 1967 the same thing. 1980-1988... Thus it's not rare that category 5s don't appear once every 10 years. Of course, there will be noise year. But you look at long term data: between 1886-2005 there was an average of 9 hurricanes a year. In 1945-2005 11 hurricanes per year, in 1990-2010 14 hurricanes per year. Of course, you get variation across time but the trends stay consistent. source: " No, no, no, no anecdotes: 10 years without any hurricane landing in Florida!!!!!!! NONE AT ALL!!!!! While you are quoting data with no category 5 hurricanes! Give me a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Interesting discussion, re the investment POV Per the stock of existing industries - it's which ones suffer and which ones benefit from disruptive change. Lots of spin. Per the flow of climate change through industries - it's really whether carbon trading is the most effective mechanism. More spin. Whether one believes in climate change or not is irrelevant; as at this point - most would recognize that the collective belief in climate change is well past the tipping point. Like it or not, carbon/pollution trading makes very good sense. You want to pollute? you pay for it, and create the economic incentives to clean up your act. If you are polluting 'for everyone else' (Alberta Tar Sands), then build it into your selling price. If you cant pass the cost on, then you either need to do business differently (invest in carbon removal, sell refined versus raw product, chemicals versus fuel), or shut down - a decision dictated by the market, not some 'authority' telling you to do so. Industries routinely strand; in a 'resource economy', disruptive change is the norm - not the exception. Like it or not, Tar Sands production is perceived as high pollution; and 'climate change' is forcing business to be done differently. We just don't want to hear it, because it will throw tens of thousands out of work. Rather than work with change, we choose to fight it, and create short-sell opportunity. Great for investors, but not so much for the people being affected. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutch Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 I have expressed this in the past but I will mention this again here. Environmentalists/liberals have picked a wrong tool (that is science) to convince people that climate change is a big issue and it's caused by humans. Because if you know anything about the scientific method, there is no way you can prove either of these hypotheses -- "climate change (via CO2 level) is caused by man-made activities" or "climate change (via CO2 level) causes more catastrophic weather events". Climate scientists can only make *subjective* predictions based on interpretation of data (i.e., correlations, models, etc.), but they cannot prove/disapprove such hypotheses. It's not any different from economists making stock market predictions. Yet, many people treat those hypotheses as absolute truths because many scientists say so. If you disagree, tell me how you would empirically test either of the hypotheses. There are simpler yet better arguments to be made based on ethical/moral/economic reasons to protect the environment. Yet, the environmentalists/liberals are trying to demonize and crush all skeptics in the name of the "absolute truth" of science. It's basically a new form of religion. There is no more debate to be had, it's the absolute truth, and we are all going to hell if we do not chastise ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now