Global Warming

[tigersnake]

I may be a simpleton but Science is Science. It's not a consensus. Science is either proven by the facts or not proven.

The scientific theories are always evolving and being tweaked. But consensuses (?) are reached along the way which form a basis upon which to act. Newtons theories formed the basis of all sorts of human progress, but they holes in them, as did Einsteins. Science is pretty much never 100% fact, I'm sure you could find some theoretical physicist somewhere who could explain the 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. But human society progresses on the basis of the best info at the time, always has and hopefully always will.

 

[tigersnake]

Hehe no we won't ever convince each other, that's obvious enough.

I find more and more truths written by people that lived long ago. The problems they dealt with are so similar to today's problem it is not funny. Vaccination is a wee bit less complex than climate science. The scientific method can handle it. I'm arguing the scientific method can not handle climate change.

You might believe we are all better off, but what you advocate must result in the subversion of democracy because you wish to dictate how money is spent (a lot of money). That is not capitalism, that is not freedom; that is socialism, that is totalitarianism.

I have much more faith in the market to decide where capital should be allocated for the maximum benefit of society, not, forgive me, by you individually or anyone else because it always comes down to central planning of the economy. There is no way in hell that you or anyone else will ever come close to having the information you need to direct an economy, that's why socialism failed, and that's why the West is now crumbling.

Yes vaccination is a lot less complex, but its an internet footy forum, and the point stands re scientific consensus. The scientific consensus has been building on climate change for 60 years. I believe its compelling on climate change and its time to act.

Re the central socialist control thing, geez, we're never gunna agree there. As I've said before, I love markets, Love them to bits. They are beautiful thing. I hate misguided messing with them. But currently we have a market failure that, if you believe the scientific consensus, is degrading our environment for future generations. A price on pollution will fix that, foster a lot of exciting new industries and phase out some stale old dirty ones. I reckon if a price is put on pollution to fix the market failure, the free market will weave its magic.

But its gunna be a long haul.

 

[tigersnake]

That's what it should be, but what TS described is reality.

Should be? Never has been, never will, to think it 'should be' says a lot. But bridges get built, planes fly, rockets fly to the moon, sick people get cured, all on the basis of scientific consensus.

 

[Giardiasis]

Yes vaccination is a lot less complex, but its an internet footy forum, and the point stands re scientific consensus. The scientific consensus has been building on climate change for 60 years. I believe its compelling on climate change and its time to act.

Re the central socialist control thing, geez, we're never gunna agree there. As I've said before, I love markets, Love them to bits. They are beautiful thing. I hate misguided messing with them. But currently we have a market failure that, if you believe the scientific consensus, is degrading our environment for future generations. A price on pollution will fix that, foster a lot of exciting new industries and phase out some stale old dirty ones. I reckon if a price is put on pollution to fix the market failure, the free market will weave its magic.

But its gunna be a long haul.

Any artificial government induced price on carbon dioxide emissions is the very opposite of what a free market is. That is why it will not work. Recognise what you advocate.

 

[Giardiasis]

Should be? Never has been, never will, to think it 'should be' says a lot. But bridges get built, planes fly, rockets fly to the moon, sick people get cured, all on the basis of scientific consensus.

Based on fact as in based on observation and reproducible experiments. I will re-iterate, all your examples are fine examples of where physical science works. Climate science is far far more complex than those examples. You say the consensus says this, and then we act on it. That's fine as long as the free market acts on it, not government. The damaged caused by wrong consensus will be less severe.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I may be a simpleton but Science is Science. It's not a consensus. Science is either proven by the facts or not proven.

Nope. Science provides the best picture of reality based on the facts that you refer to. In complex systems like climate there are many lines of evidence and new evidence coming to light all the time causing slight adjustments to the theory ( as is the case for all theories). The consensus opinion of climate scientists is that AGW is real despite all of the arguments from incredulity and arguments from (outdated) authority who didn't have access to the data available today.

 

[tigersnake]

Any artificial government induced price on carbon dioxide emissions is the very opposite of what a free market is. That is why it will not work. Recognise what you advocate.

I dunno what to say. Dunno where to start, as I've said, I love free markets, but they are there for us, we aren't there for the market. Markets fail all the time and impinge on human rights or destroy the environment. A classic example taught in HSC economics is slavery. The south of the US got hugely wealthy on the back of slavery. If you care about human rights, its a classic case of market failure. Labour was too cheap, just like energy is too cheap now. The Prez stepped in and wanted to ban slavery, the South said get stuffed don't mess with the free market, black people aren't human like us, we'll lose competitive advantage to other countries with slaves etc etc. It seems weird now but it was a fairly even debate at the time. Like I said, I love markets, but they have to be regulated where people or the environment gets hurt, thats my view.

Where do you draw the line on laissez faire? thats what I always wonder, the laws of the land effect markets, chuck 'em out, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument, if someone want to buy it and someone want to sell it, thats fine. Teenage prostitution fine, (I know you are'nt for that mind you just making a point), why have insider trading laws, any corp regs at all, why have open AGMs, it goes on and on. Markets have never been totally free, never will. again, I love free markets, but failures have to be regulated, and I believe this matter is one of the most important to regulate in history.

 

[IanG]

Any artificial government induced price on carbon dioxide emissions is the very opposite of what a free market is. That is why it will not work. Recognise what you advocate.

Its the first step to creating a market on carbon.

 

[evo]

Yeah, but if it were purely up to the market, there wouldn't be a market in carbon.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah. If it were up to the market, slavery would have lasted another dunno 20 or 40 years, DDT would still be being used, Ivory wouldn't have been banned and elephants would be extinct. Sometimes the market needs a kick up the arse. The market has a whole set of rules, this will be just another rule, after it settles in people and companies won't even think about it.

Thats if it gets in in the first place. The ideologues are fighting a pretty effective anti-thought and reason fight.

People think I'm crazy but its true that the Native title debate of the early 90s was very similar to this. According to the Coalition, the mining companies and farmers it was going to destroy the economy. Now mining companies just give the blackfellas who own the land a cut, 0.2-1.5%. They don't even blink, just another overhead.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah, but if it were purely up to the market, there wouldn't be a market in carbon.

Also, the market doesn't have a brain or free will, its made up of a complex web of people, companies, nations. If 'the market' doesn't want to start a market in carbon, it actually means, completely understandable there is no conspiracy here, that those happy with the status quo of cheap fossil fuel energy hold sway.

 

[evo]

Yeah. If it were up to the market, slavery would have lasted another dunno 20 or 40 years, DDT would still be being used, Ivory wouldn't have been banned and elephants would be extinct.

So why do you favour a (pseudo) market based repsonse to this problem?

As I've said a few times in this thread, it seems to me if the government really was serious about curbing our co2 emissions they would go intoi the electricty generating buisiness.

The ideologues are fighting a pretty effective anti-thought and reason fight.

Has it every occurred to you that your views are also an ideology - just a different one? It has always amused that this word is used as a pejorative, ussually by lefties against righties.

 

[tigersnake]

So why do you favour a (pseudo) market based repsonse to this problem?

As I've said a few times in this thread, it seems to me if the government really was serious about curbing our co2 emissions they would go intoi the electricty generating buisiness.
Has it every occurred to you that your views are also an ideology - just a different one? It has always amused that this word is used as a pejorative, ussually by lefties against righties.

Yeah it is used by lefties against righties, but its used more, only my perception, by righties against lefties. (see Gs 'socialist' comments above). As I've tried to explain, I and the vast majority of scientists believe the data is in, and we have to act. If you reckon thats ideology, nothing I can say or do about that.

As for the government going in to the power generating business, heres where me and G will agree, a disaster. Fix the market failure of no price on pollution, nothing pseudo about it, the market will boom in low or non-carbon energy generation.

 

[mld]

I suppose this is where I pop in and say that emissions trading is a false market doomed to being rorted and gamed, and the best market mechanism is to slap a big price on the inputs. ;D

 

[evo]

Yeah it is used by lefties against righties, but its used more, only my perception, by righties against lefties. (see Gs 'socialist' comments above). As I've tried to explain, I and the vast majority of scientists believe the data is in, and we have to act. If you reckon thats ideology, nothing I can say or do about that.

Steady. I've never attempted to argue against da science. I'm just intrigued by the use of the term 'ideologue' as pejorative as you just did. As you say it can be used in the other direction by righties against lefties.

It's off topic, but it seems to me being called an ideologue is actually a compliment. It usually demonstrates one has researched their views.

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies) etc.

 

[tigersnake]

Steady. I've never attempted to argue against da science. I'm just intrigued by the use of the term 'ideologue' as pejorative as you just did. As you say it can be used in the other direction by righties against lefties.

It's off topic, but it seems to me being called an ideologue is actually a compliment. It usually demonstrates one has researched their views.

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies) etc.

yeah ideology isn't all bad. like a lot of things it can be positive as your def suggests, but also as Karl Marx said it acts 'like blinkers on a horse'.

The thing that for me really gives away the ideological nature of the denial camp is the refusal to accept the science. If science comes up with something they like, there is never any thought of trying to undermine it or dismiss it. 'Nice' science like cures for diseases or greater processor capacity for smaller computers etc, thats all fine. They don't go ferreting through third rate Unis to find someone who disagrees. They aren't against science, if it if fits in with their world view of maintaining the status quo, generating profits etc, they love it.

So to me, calling the denial response ideological isn't perforative, although the people who I'm using it on would say it was, its just what it is.

 

[tigersnake]

I suppose this is where I pop in and say that emissions trading is a false market doomed to being rorted and gamed, and the best market mechanism is to slap a big price on the inputs. ;D

I don't see it as a false market. We know how much carbon is produced when we burn a litre of oil. Very clear. Just putting price on it, just like the market in industrial rubbish skips.

 

[mld]

I don't see it as a false market. We know how much carbon is produced when we burn a litre of oil. Very clear.

Indeed, that sounds exactly like what I am proposing, putting a price on a litre of oil. My version has less ticket clippers though.

Just putting price on it, just like the market in industrial rubbish skips.

Do companies trade rights to have industrial rubbish taken away? Honest question, never heard of industrial rubbish skip trading before.

 

[BustinDustin]

I have my views on the CT but one thing that I disapprove of is why a portion of the CT is to be given to the United Nations to help poorer countries battle climate change.

Tigersnake can you tell me if this is fair or not, you look as if you're the Greg Combet of PRE. ;D

 

[tigersnake]

Indeed, that sounds exactly like what I am proposing, putting a price on a litre of oil. My version has less ticket clippers though.

Do companies trade rights to have industrial rubbish taken away? Honest question, never heard of industrial rubbish skip trading before.

no they pay money to get em taken away, otherwise they'll be buried in rubbish. Pollution is different in that it goes into the air and doesn't have a short term direct effect. Putting rubbish that floats in the air I guess.

But the market in skip[s is a decent analogy. Years ago companies dumped their rubbish in the river or the bush, that became illegal then they had to hire skips, then tips became more regulated as the effect of different kinds of toxic rubbish became apparent. Skips became dearer, companies become mopper and more smarter or efficient with their wast, and skip companies do the same in a cut throat competitive highly regulated market. A good study in a regulated and evolving market as new knowledge and societies expectations change.