Commentary #6: Global Warming

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Given your conditions it is an economic/ political problem not a scientific one.

I think this is a fair description; it's also an almost inevitable conclusion, given that I had accepted the scientific premises of the question to start with.
On the other hand, that "scientific" attribute is making me think (see below).

Is it really worth it to try and rationalize this?

I am not rationalising or justifying it. I am just moving from first premises, and seeing where they might lead once you start taking logical consequences from them. What you do with it is up to you; you could use those conclusions to devise ways to mitigate or defuse their effects, or as a way to show how dangerous the initial premises are.

My aim was to highlight what I thought are some glaring, under-debated issues (and at least one person, Barry, thinks that there might have been some value in the exercise); just that, nothing else.

I am also thinking about writing a similar piece on the epistemic (for wont of a simpler word) aspects of the Global Warming / Climate Change debate. As in, is that actually "science", in the way for example Karl Popper defined it?

IPB

[Subby]

Let me go off a tangent for a second.

I'll start by conceding on the main point; that is, let's assume an increase in CO2 does indeed result into increased temperature, and let's also assume that the increase in CO2 comes from human activity. Yes, this is contentious to say the least, there a huge debate on data and all that jazz but...just indulge me, and for a second pretend that the science is settled.

From the premise above, it derives the well-known statement that humanity as a whole needs to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. This means that CO2 emissions become a limited issue resource, something of which only a fixed amount is available every year. The question is: how do you divide up this limited resource among humans?

I think there are three options (I assume there is a mechanism to precisely compute emissions, which might be far-fetched, but it's beside the point here).

- The equal option. You take the total of permitted CO2 emissions, and divide it in equal parts. This means that people who currently emit a lot (think private jet owners), will have to considerably reduce their emissions, and probably lower their living standards. This seems fair and just, after all they are the biggest contributors to the current situation. It's also the application at a lower scale of the accepted principle that developed nations shoudl cut more than developing ones, because they have contributed more to the problem.
Also, sharing CO2 emissions like this allows people who currently emit less to increase their activity and improve their life; this too seems fair and reasonable.

- The equal reduction option. Everyone cuts current emissions by the same percentage, so that the total comes down to the required, permitted amount. This is not as fair as the previous solution. Crued example: if you have a 20-room mansion, and you are asked to cut emissions by 20%, turning off heating in four of your rooms is not a big deal, and won't affect your life much (unless you are used to throw gigantic parties). But if you live in a two-bedroom council house, a similar cut probably means your home will be cold for the whole winter.

- The Market option. In this case, you fix a price for emissions, and let people buy permits to emit according to their needs. Economic theory says that the people who most need emitting will be willing to pay the price.

That's actually a really good snapshot of the problem. I wouldn't bring it up because it's buying into their frame and "they" don't operate in good faith so buying into their frame is not a great strategy.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am also thinking about writing a similar piece on the epistemic (for wont of a simpler word) aspects of the Global Warming / Climate Change debate. As in, is that actually "science", in the way for example Karl Popper defined it?

Please do so.

[Barry Charles]

My aim was to highlight what I thought are some glaring, under-debated issues (and at least one person, Barry, thinks that there might have been some value in the exercise); just that, nothing else.

I am also thinking about writing a similar piece on the epistemic (for wont of a simpler word) aspects of the Global Warming / Climate Change debate. As in, is that actually "science", in the way for example Karl Popper defined it?

IPB

Here’s a thought. Up front, be aware I talk faster than I think.

While the amount of CO2 is not a constant the number of Carbon atoms on earth is. They bond with all kinds of other things. Biologically, rocks and minerals, and so on.

Maybe we should take the finite number of C’s and apply your finite sum economics idea. The bookkeeping of every atom would be impossible but a pie chart type accounting would probably be doable. In this way, when an individual is “responsible” for pollution for driving a car, they are credited and debited against the pie slices, not the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s not all debit.

I’m sure this could be done with sufficient scientific rigor and I suspect the outcome will be surprising to the CO2 goes up Temperature goes up mantra.

[TommyGun]

I think this is a fair description; it's also an almost inevitable conclusion, given that I had accepted the scientific premises of the question to start with.
On the other hand, that "scientific" attribute is making me think (see below).

I am also thinking about writing a similar piece on the epistemic (for wont of a simpler word) aspects of the Global Warming / Climate Change debate. As in, is that actually "science", in the way for example Karl Popper defined it?

IPB

IPB, you need to write this. I have my beat up copy of Popper’s “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” I would be happy to send you if it helps.

[Barry Charles]

One little piece of rhetoric to lighten your days: suitable for a T shirt or ball cap.

“People who drive electric cars produce no food”

But where does our electricity come from? Exactly!

[Subby]

Here’s a thought. Up front, be aware I talk faster than I think.

While the amount of CO2 is not a constant the number of Carbon atoms on earth is. They bond with all kinds of other things. Biologically, rocks and minerals, and so on.

Maybe we should take the finite number of C’s and apply your finite sum economics idea. The bookkeeping of every atom would be impossible but a pie chart type accounting would probably be doable. In this way, when an individual is “responsible” for pollution for driving a car, they are credited and debited against the pie slices, not the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s not all debit.

I’m sure this could be done with sufficient scientific rigor and I suspect the outcome will be surprising to the CO2 goes up Temperature goes up mantra.

There is talk that a carbon based economy is what the wef and other globalist ilk want as their end goal. You will own nothing and be happy, and your carbon credits will dictate what you can do. It's the perfect wealth system as those in charge can never lose it.

[Satch12879]

My brother-in-law stated on Monday, enthusiastically, that he would buy an electric motorcycle, while we were watching a parade of actual motorcycles during the holiday.

At dinner later, he proudly displayed a photo of a celebratory sodomy flag he had hung on his balcony in anticipation of the upcoming holy month of devotion.

I want to get off the planet, now, please.

[Mark Rippetoe]

What is a "sodomy flag"? And why is your sister married to him?

[Barry Charles]

There is talk that a carbon based economy is what the wef and other globalist ilk want as their end goal. You will own nothing and be happy, and your carbon credits will dictate what you can do. It's the perfect wealth system as those in charge can never lose it.

I think that carbon economy or carbon credits refer to carbon dioxide, CO2.

However, CO2 is a bad measure for determing acceptable human behavior. It’s based on the primitive thought that as CO2 goes up temperature goes up.

The irony is that 100% of food comes from CO2. So CO2 from somewhere is required in order to eat. “ Thus, driving an electric car produces no food. And the situation gets worse if the electricity comes from renewables.”