Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

Forums › Off topic › Global warming/Climate Change is so last year! We're all going to freeze by 2030!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1928092 2-Jan-2018 15:57

MaxLV:
tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

See, this is the thing... You're right there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, and no amount of juggling the percentages of who believes or disbelieves these unknowns is going to change that salient fact.

As to what we need to do, what do you think of the global carbon credits market? Can you figure out how polluters buying carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting solves the pollution problems they're responsible for?

Trading carbon credits:

What is the carbon trading?

The carbon trade also refers to the ability of individual companies to trade polluting rights through a regulatory system known as cap and trade. Companies that pollute less can sell their unused pollution rights to companies that pollute more.

Carbon credits add a visible entry on the balance sheet and qualifies a cost for pollution. The aim is that the cost of credits out weighs the cost of reducing emissions. This provides an additional incentive to reduce overall emissions.

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

8809 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1928101 2-Jan-2018 16:27

OK, so the OP doesn't trust the scientific experts.

How about Insurers? They are known for conservative mainstream opinions.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/25/climate-change-insurance-industry/

"Most businesses know that eventually, they could be profoundly affected by climate change. What’s surprising is how quickly the shifts, threats, and costs are materializing.

Take the insurance industry, which might be expected to profit as people seek to ward off losses. But instead, it’s thrown into disarray when those losses are no longer possibilities, but inevitabilities. At a certain point, as the likelihood of extreme weather events increases, insurance companies are "not selling a risk aversion remedy to people," says Dan Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School who specializes in risk perception. "[They’re] getting taken to the cleaners."

A recent industry study found that last year there were 750 major "loss events" like earthquakes, storms, and heat waves, well above the 10-year annual average of 590. Analytics firm CoreLogic has found that 6.9 million homes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are at risk of damage from hurricane storm surge that could cost more than $1.5 trillion."

Technofreak

6110 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1928116 2-Jan-2018 17:33

MikeB4:
Carbon credits add a visible entry on the balance sheet and qualifies a cost for pollution. The aim is that the cost of credits out weighs the cost of reducing emissions. This provides an additional incentive to reduce overall emissions.

Have you done any research on which companies were behind the development of carbon credits? No doubt you have heard of Goldman Sachs, (one of the companies at the fore front of the GFC), and Enron? A quote from one of Enron's CEO's "We are a green energy company, but the green stands for money," Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO, Enron.

There's some evidence to suggest carbon credits have the inverse effect to what they were supposed to have achieved. Really carbon credits are a method of wealth redistribution taking money from developed countries and giving it to undeveloped countries. Then there's all the fraud that's gone with carbon credits.

An interesting read here, https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/10/01/cap-and-trade-green-climate-fund-are-fraught-with-fraud/#19c94b3b4940

I'm not sure carbon credits are a valid way of reducing carbon emissions.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1928118 2-Jan-2018 17:41

Technofreak:
MikeB4:
Carbon credits add a visible entry on the balance sheet and qualifies a cost for pollution. The aim is that the cost of credits out weighs the cost of reducing emissions. This provides an additional incentive to reduce overall emissions.

Have you done any research on which companies were behind the development of carbon credits? No doubt you have heard of Goldman Sachs, (one of the companies at the fore front of the GFC), and Enron? A quote from one of Enron's CEO's "We are a green energy company, but the green stands for money," Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO, Enron.

There's some evidence to suggest carbon credits have the inverse effect to what they were supposed to have achieved. Really carbon credits are a method of wealth redistribution taking money from developed countries and giving it to undeveloped countries. Then there's all the fraud that's gone with carbon credits.

An interesting read here, https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/10/01/cap-and-trade-green-climate-fund-are-fraught-with-fraud/#19c94b3b4940

I'm not sure carbon credits are a valid way of reducing carbon emissions.

I was stating the concept only, as to its usefulness I feel it’s limited at best.

gzt

15224 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1928146 2-Jan-2018 18:34

Environmental Defense Fund in the USA believes it works very well:

EDF: The state's efforts include a cap-and-trade program – which EDF has helped design and implement – that launched in 2013. From that launch to 2015, California's emissions from sources under the cap declined 4 percent.

Through the European Union's Emissions Trading System, capped emissions in the European Union were 15 percent lower in 2015 than when the program started in 2005.

Pilot programs in China, which have included elements of cap and trade, now cover more than 2,600 companies in regions with a population of more than 258 million people.

gzt

15224 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1928155 2-Jan-2018 19:18

MaxLV:
gzt:
MaxLV: I dont know about you, but I was always taught science is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of provable, verifiable facts, something that current scientific understanding of how the planets global warming and it's causes is a long way from achieving. We just dont know with any scientific certainty what causes global warming and cooling.

Not exactly. When Einstein proposed general relativity there were many objections. Those objections gradually reduced over time. This is why you find yourself in a minority at this point.

It was not a matter of consensus as you state, but over time, and as evidence accumulated, the end result is vast majority of scientists now agree with general relativity.

Even today you can find many objectors to general relativity. They are in a small minority.

If I understand your reply correctly, currently there is a minority scientific opinion against the 'consensus' for the causes of global climate change,

Climate scientists who are certain about man made CO2 being the cause of climate change are the majority yes.

MaxLV: but over time that may change as the evidence accumulates,

It has changed yes. More climate scientists are certain than previously. If that trendline continues you can expect that number to increase still further as it did regarding the now largely irrelevant objections against general relativity for example.

MaxLV: and the vast majority of scientists agree we just dont know with any scientific certainty what all the causes of global warming and cooling are, right?

Wrong. The estimates are around 90% scientific certainty. If that was a large asteroid heading for earth, we would have easily created and implemented several mitigation strategies without hesitation. It's time to get on with it.

MaxLV: As to me 'finding myself in a minority' about the consensus for the causes of climate change, I dont see anything wrong with that, and dont see that as a valid reason to stop being skeptical about the 'consensus' at this point.

I don't see anything wrong with that either.

Your points of skepticism have been addressed.

Technofreak

6110 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1928164 2-Jan-2018 19:53

gzt: Environmental Defense Fund in the USA believes it works very well:

EDF: The state's efforts include a cap-and-trade program – which EDF has helped design and implement – that launched in 2013. From that launch to 2015, California's emissions from sources under the cap declined 4 percent.

Through the European Union's Emissions Trading System, capped emissions in the European Union were 15 percent lower in 2015 than when the program started in 2005.

Pilot programs in China, which have included elements of cap and trade, now cover more than 2,600 companies in regions with a population of more than 258 million people.

As you might expect they would.

From the article I linked above:

Cap-and-trade is a vastly overpriced system with "all pain and no gain." For example, although Waxman-Markey had a lofty if not impossible goal of an 83% reduction of U.S. emissions of by 2050, this would have reversed just 3% of the human influence on climate, equating to about 0.09°F. From 2012-2035, one estimate has a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme causing an accumulated GDP loss of $9.4 trillion.

To counter your quote regarding the benefits of a cap and trade in the USA

The European Union (EU) created its own cap-and-trade, Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2005. CO2 Emissions have fallen, but not as fast as they have in the U.S., where no such scheme exists and where population and economic growth has been faster (see Figure). The results of EU cap-and-trade are obvious: residential electricity prices per kilowatt hour...Denmark (42 cents), Germany (40 cents), Spain (31 cents), and UK (25 cents), compared to the U.S. (12.5 cents).

I'm not saying either argument is correct, but pointing out there is plenty or conflicting information.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1928286 2-Jan-2018 22:14

Technofreak:

MikeB4:
Carbon credits add a visible entry on the balance sheet and qualifies a cost for pollution. The aim is that the cost of credits out weighs the cost of reducing emissions. This provides an additional incentive to reduce overall emissions.

Have you done any research on which companies were behind the development of carbon credits? No doubt you have heard of Goldman Sachs, (one of the companies at the fore front of the GFC), and Enron? A quote from one of Enron's CEO's "We are a green energy company, but the green stands for money," Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO, Enron.

There's some evidence to suggest carbon credits have the inverse effect to what they were supposed to have achieved. Really carbon credits are a method of wealth redistribution taking money from developed countries and giving it to undeveloped countries. Then there's all the fraud that's gone with carbon credits.

An interesting read here, https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/10/01/cap-and-trade-green-climate-fund-are-fraught-with-fraud/#19c94b3b4940

I'm not sure carbon credits are a valid way of reducing carbon emissions.

I agree with you 100%! As far as I can figure buying carbon credits simply allow polluters to buy their way out of having to fix their pollution problems...

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928291 2-Jan-2018 22:37

MaxLV:

tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

See, this is the thing... You're right there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, and no amount of juggling the percentages of who believes or disbelieves these unknowns is going to change that salient fact.

As to what we need to do, what do you think of the global carbon credits market? Can you figure out how polluters buying carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting solves the pollution problems they're responsible for?

Trading carbon credits:

What is the carbon trading? The carbon trade also refers to the ability of individual companies to trade polluting rights through a regulatory system known as cap and trade. Companies that pollute less can sell their unused pollution rights to companies that pollute more.

You do not believe in the effect humans have on climate change, and the end game of that. What then has carbon credits got to do with it? I assume its basically a free tax take

Batman

Mad Scientist
29054 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928328 2-Jan-2018 23:21

It's not free tax take. The cost is passed on to consumers for no effect on climate change. I do not for one second believe polluters will reduce pollution because of getting stung by carbon penalties. They will happily pass on the cost and pollute even more (to make more money selling their products). Those who pollute less? Well they would have been polluting less regardless. But now they can increase their pollution and get more money. Polluting less is still absolute pollution. But since they get paid for their polluting, why not go and do more business and increase their output? Free money.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928338 3-Jan-2018 07:15

Batman:

It's not free tax take. The cost is passed on to consumers for no effect on climate change. I do not for one second believe polluters will reduce pollution because of getting stung by carbon penalties. They will happily pass on the cost and pollute even more (to make more money selling their products). Those who pollute less? Well they would have been polluting less regardless. But now they can increase their pollution and get more money. Polluting less is still absolute pollution. But since they get paid for their polluting, why not go and do more business and increase their output? Free money.

Exactly, a free tax take

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1928408 3-Jan-2018 11:34

tdgeek:

MaxLV:

tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

See, this is the thing... You're right there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, and no amount of juggling the percentages of who believes or disbelieves these unknowns is going to change that salient fact.

As to what we need to do, what do you think of the global carbon credits market? Can you figure out how polluters buying carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting solves the pollution problems they're responsible for?

Trading carbon credits:

What is the carbon trading? The carbon trade also refers to the ability of individual companies to trade polluting rights through a regulatory system known as cap and trade. Companies that pollute less can sell their unused pollution rights to companies that pollute more.

You do not believe in the effect humans have on climate change, and the end game of that. What then has carbon credits got to do with it? I assume its basically a free tax take

You're wrong when you say I dont believe in the effect humans have on climate change. We do have an effect(duh). What I'm sceptical about is how bad that effect is, is going to be, that we can control global climate change, and what it will do to the global climate, as regularly published by 'the media, some climate scientists, and most of all AGW believers'.

Carbon credits and carbon trading have been 'touted' as a way to reduce or stop polluters from polluting. As far as I can see they dont. It just a way for polluters to buy their right to keep polluting, because it's cheaper than fixing the pollution they're causing.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1928415 3-Jan-2018 11:47

MaxLV:

tdgeek:

MaxLV:

tdgeek:

If the belief ratio of the scientific community was 60/40 or 70/30, then its fair to be sceptical. But its an overwhelming majority based on overwhelming tests over a long period of time. Ice cores, old atmosphere, water, its been tested to the hilt. And while there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, there is massive data that pints right back to the Industrial Revolution and since then. Overwhelming evidence is quite likely a conservative view.

The sad thing is little is talked about what we need to do, and how we need to do it. As right now, the money side of using existing FF and not investing in green energy very much is cheaper.

See, this is the thing... You're right there is a lot of unknowns with climate knowledge, and no amount of juggling the percentages of who believes or disbelieves these unknowns is going to change that salient fact.

As to what we need to do, what do you think of the global carbon credits market? Can you figure out how polluters buying carbon credits to allow them to keep polluting solves the pollution problems they're responsible for?

Trading carbon credits:

What is the carbon trading? The carbon trade also refers to the ability of individual companies to trade polluting rights through a regulatory system known as cap and trade. Companies that pollute less can sell their unused pollution rights to companies that pollute more.

You do not believe in the effect humans have on climate change, and the end game of that. What then has carbon credits got to do with it? I assume its basically a free tax take

You're wrong when you say I dont believe in the effect humans have on climate change. We do have an effect(duh). What I'm sceptical about is how bad that effect is, is going to be, that we can control global climate change, and what it will do to the global climate, as regularly published by 'the media, some climate scientists, and most of all AGW believers'.

Carbon credits and carbon trading have been 'touted' as a way to reduce or stop polluters from polluting. As far as I can see they dont. It just a way for polluters to buy their right to keep polluting, because it's cheaper than fixing the pollution they're causing.

No need for a "duh"

As I see is most of the media believes in the climate change problem we have caused. Some climate scientists?? You mean almost all, not some.

Carbon taxes and credits do not work, that's correct. The reason is money is why we are not doing much. Oil companies, Govts scared of affecting their votes and adversely affecting their economy, which is votes. Carbon taxes are meant to use the same problem, money, to reduce emissions, but it doesnt work. Clearly it is not punitive enough, plus no one is working hard to push solar, wind and EV's into mainstream. End result is nothing happens, leaving the issue of expense, reduced liveable land, famine, wars, to occur down the track, leaving us unscathed.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1928423 3-Jan-2018 12:00

Emissions are only part of the problem. Plastics, acidification of the oceans, deforestation, over farming and in NZ case Dairying. Loss of foundation creatures in the food chain. Add all that to an accelerating climate change due to lack of action and acceptance of the obvious is rapidly signing the death warrant of large numbers of gains and flora.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17254 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1928436 3-Jan-2018 12:07

As above. Anyone who thinks people cannot affect the climate is simply wrong-headed. People affect everything they touch. We have destroyed the ecologies of entire countries, pushed numerous species to extinction, fundamentally altered natural systems. Why wouldn't we also have an effect on the climate?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9