ADVERTISEMENT

This article perfectly captures my views on Climate Change

UCFhonors

Todd's Tiki Bar
Feb 20, 2010
21,475
2,723
113
Studying the Climate Doesn't Make You an Expert on Economics and Politics
https://mises.org/blog/studying-climate-doesnt-make-you-expert-economics-and-politics


In response to the Trump administration's announcement that it was pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, some of his critics declared that anyone who likes "science" would have supported the accord.

Not surprisingly, Neil deGrasse Tyson rushed to declare that Trump supported the withdrawal because his administration "never learned what Science is or how and why it works."

But what does "Science" (which Tyson capitalizes for some reason) have to do with it?

We know that Tyson is of the opinion that there is global warming. We also know that many other physical scientists agree with him.

But, it does not follow logically that agreeing with Tyson on the matter of climate change must necessarily mean supporting the Paris Climate Agreement.

After all, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't a scientific study. It's a political document that lays out a specific public-policy agenda.

Agreement or disagreement with the accord might hint at one's opinions about climate science. Or it might not. One can agree that climate change exists and that human beings have a large role in the phenomenon. Agreement on this matter, however, does not dictate that one must also agree with the political policies outlined in the Paris document.

The two are totally independent phenomena.

Science and Politics Are Not the Same Thing
An analogy might help illustrate further:

Scientific inquiry tells us that obesity is bad for one's health. Let's imagine then, that in response to rising obesity rates, a large number of politicians gather and sign an agreement — let's call it the London Obesity Avoidance Deal (LOAD). The supporting politicians claim that the deal will reduce obesity and that failure to abide by the agreement will spell a health crisis for humanity.

Does this mean, then, that any politician who doesn't sign onto the agreement is an "obesity denier"? Does a failure to approve of the agreement prove that the dissenters believe that obesity is not a real thing?

Obviously not.

Those who refuse to sign the agreement may be of the opinion that the LOAD does little to actually reduce obesity. Or, the dissenters may feel that the deal fails to properly compare costs and benefits when imposing its directives. Opponents may feel that "the cure is worse than the disease."


It's a longer read but it's worth it.
 
Pretty much sums up my view. The left is faux raging saying Trump is going to destroy the environment by pulling out of this awful deal when it has nothing to do with the environment. It just saves us $3T and 6.5 million jobs and keeps us from sending billions to other countries that aren't going to do anything about pollution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFhonors
Remember when Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol back in 2001?

Yeah...Florida and NYC were all going to be underwater since the USA backed out of a bogus deal where 80% of the countries didn't even have to meet the stated goal and China and India could just continue to pollute at high levels.

Meanwhile, in past 16 years since then, USA has done a much better done than many of their tiny European counterparts in cutting emissions with the help of technological advancements.

The stupid Paris Accord wasn't even a binding treaty as Obama knew it would never get approved in his own Senate so he used a special executive order and called it an executive agreement...all to transfer wealth from the USA to others and the loss of millions of US job.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/obama-will-bypass-senate-ratify-paris-climate-acco/

NOAA can't predict how many hurricanes we will have this year (its only a guess from say 5 to 9) yet in 83 years, NOAA says much of Florida & NYC will be underwater.

Yeah, ok.

When Park Ave Apartments in NYC start going for hundreds of dollars vs Millions of $$$ (because you know, those buildings will be underwater), then I will believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFhonors
I agree you can disagree with the Paris agreement and still believe Climate change is a problem. I have a few issues with the Paris agreement.

First, one of the goals is to get temperatures to pre-industrial levels +2.0degC. My engineering brain says that's a bad requirement. Global temperature is affected by many things, including human business processes. Just because we achieve a large cut, we may not meet the temperature goal due to other processes increasing temperature. The better requirement would be to reduce carbon emissions by a specific amount. Enough research has been done in this area that we should have an idea how much total worldwide carbon emissions is sustainable.

Second, there's no enforcement of the rules. Everyone could sign and do nothing. It's also self reported which could mean there's falsified data.

Third, the US is misrepresented in the cuts. We account for 17% of the total cuts, while only contributing 15% of the global emissions. That's 113%. Meanwhile, China accounts for 20% of the total cuts, while contributing 30% of global emissions. That's 66%. China is far too underrepresented in the cuts (as are others) and the US is expected to pick up the slack (again).

Lastly, the cost is crazy. $100 billion per year for 5 years. We've already contributed $3 billion while China has yet to contribute anything. When it's all said and done, we'll end up carrying the lion share here as well.
 
I agree you can disagree with the Paris agreement and still believe Climate change is a problem. I have a few issues with the Paris agreement.

First, one of the goals is to get temperatures to pre-industrial levels +2.0degC. My engineering brain says that's a bad requirement. Global temperature is affected by many things, including human business processes. Just because we achieve a large cut, we may not meet the temperature goal due to other processes increasing temperature. The better requirement would be to reduce carbon emissions by a specific amount. Enough research has been done in this area that we should have an idea how much total worldwide carbon emissions is sustainable.

Second, there's no enforcement of the rules. Everyone could sign and do nothing. It's also self reported which could mean there's falsified data.

Third, the US is misrepresented in the cuts. We account for 17% of the total cuts, while only contributing 15% of the global emissions. That's 113%. Meanwhile, China accounts for 20% of the total cuts, while contributing 30% of global emissions. That's 66%. China is far too underrepresented in the cuts (as are others) and the US is expected to pick up the slack (again).

Lastly, the cost is crazy. $100 billion per year for 5 years. We've already contributed $3 billion while China has yet to contribute anything. When it's all said and done, we'll end up carrying the lion share here as well.

I would think that an engineer would think how to best deal with climate through technological and through an understanding of the effects rather than focusing on reduction of activities.

From the article
If this is true, then, the Paris agreement must accomplish several things:

1. It must rely on good science about the climate.

2. It must accurately predict the effects of climate change on standards of living.

3. It must endorse public policies that will do something to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on standards of living.

4. It must demonstrate that these public policies will in fact mitigate the effects of climate change.

5. The agreement must demonstrate that the costs of the proposed public policies themselves are lower than the costs of the climate change.

Can someone accurately predict the effect of Climate Change if we do nothing?
 
I would think that an engineer would think how to best deal with climate through technological and through an understanding of the effects rather than focusing on reduction of activities.
My point is the problem statement is too large and the success criteria is inconclusive. Basing success on a measurement that has other uncontrolled factors opens this up to be a never-ending reduction in which success is never achieved. Tying success to actual emissions that are measurable in a controlled manner means you can meet your goal. If temperatures still rise, then there's another process at work and you can rule out emissions as the problem.
 
My point is the problem statement is too large and the success criteria is inconclusive. Basing success on a measurement that has other uncontrolled factors opens this up to be a never-ending reduction in which success is never achieved. Tying success to actual emissions that are measurable in a controlled manner means you can meet your goal. If temperatures still rise, then there's another process at work and you can rule out emissions as the problem.
The problem is that we don't even have a notion at the real percentage emissions have on the temperature rise. Nor do we have any idea at the planet's natural response to rising carbon dioxide levels. But carbon dioxide is a knob that we think we can turn and so off we go creating new industries and government programs and reckless policies. Simply because we can change one variable doesn't mean that we should until we have at least a decent understanding of the second and third order effects. Some of engineering is prototyping, but much more of it is a cost-benefit-risk analysis. The costs are astronomical (not just in dollars and jobs but also at the loss of standard of living given up), the benefits are vague given that we have no idea how much effect any reduction will have on the entire system, and the risk of doing nothing is even less understood. Given that, encourage people to be better stewards of the environment, but don't cut the heart out of entire industries (thus killing thousands and thousands, if not millions, of jobs worldwide) on the hope that you might have some possible effect on climate.
 
First off man made climate change is a hoax.. secondly, even if it is true, the Paris accord was going to cost trillions of dollars and reduce temps by 2 tenths of a degree in 85 years.. As for the USA, Coal will get phased out, just not quite as fast. Natural gas is much cheaper and cleaner.

wind, and sun will continue its growth, Though they will be minor adds to the grid for a long time. Wind mills will kill more and more birds, and solar panels will replace forest and prairies which naturally reduce CO2. Cars will continue running cleaner, and get better fuel mileage. And the hot air from useless politicians will continue to warm the planet.
 
Clinton signed Kyoto. Number of Democratic Senators that voted for it ... 0

What did W. do to Kyoto again that wasn't already done?

Obama signed Paris. Number of times Obama sent it to US Congress for approval ... 0

What did Trump do again that wasn't already done?

Oh ... number of terms on India and China in Paris ... 0

Solving climate change is really simple ... tax carbon and other impacts. That means ...
- When you buy something, you pay a carbon tax on the domestic shipment
- When it comes from overseas, you pay a tax on the impact of the container ship**
- When it was manufactured, you pay a tax on the impact on the manufacture

**SIDE BONUS: Makes non-domestic production more costly for consumers, especially given the sheer, horrendous emissions of container ships

We must make consumers pay for this ... so they understand their impact!

Legislation solves nothing. Heck, Cap'n Trade was the ultimate form of special interest! Tax carbon. Tax drugs. Tax consumers who impact. That will get consumers to actually care.

Paris did nothing ... nothing
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFhonors
Every computer model has been a failure, There is little to no man made global warming. It is simply a way for big gov't elitist to steal from and control the masses.
 
I agree you can disagree with the Paris agreement and still believe Climate change is a problem. I have a few issues with the Paris agreement.

First, one of the goals is to get temperatures to pre-industrial levels +2.0degC. My engineering brain says that's a bad requirement. Global temperature is affected by many things, including human business processes. Just because we achieve a large cut, we may not meet the temperature goal due to other processes increasing temperature. The better requirement would be to reduce carbon emissions by a specific amount. Enough research has been done in this area that we should have an idea how much total worldwide carbon emissions is sustainable.

Second, there's no enforcement of the rules. Everyone could sign and do nothing. It's also self reported which could mean there's falsified data.

Third, the US is misrepresented in the cuts. We account for 17% of the total cuts, while only contributing 15% of the global emissions. That's 113%. Meanwhile, China accounts for 20% of the total cuts, while contributing 30% of global emissions. That's 66%. China is far too underrepresented in the cuts (as are others) and the US is expected to pick up the slack (again).

Lastly, the cost is crazy. $100 billion per year for 5 years. We've already contributed $3 billion while China has yet to contribute anything. When it's all said and done, we'll end up carrying the lion share here as well.
The 2 degree requirement is based on the idea that if the temperature increases to that level, there's no going back and damage will be irreversible. There is a carbon output threshold as well and that is mentioned in the agreement. But yeah, the agreement carries no punishment - only shame for those who don't follow their own standards (and countries were free to make them for themselves), and only pledges to pay, not any formal requirements. The US has paid $1B of the $3B it committed to the Green Climate Fund, so pulling out saves the US $2B and as a result, the US gets shamed by the rest of the world.
 
I just want to know how the hole in the ozone is doing. I verified in the shower this morning that I still have skin on my body.
 
The 2 degree requirement is based on the idea that if the temperature increases to that level, there's no going back and damage will be irreversible. There is a carbon output threshold as well and that is mentioned in the agreement. But yeah, the agreement carries no punishment - only shame for those who don't follow their own standards (and countries were free to make them for themselves), and only pledges to pay, not any formal requirements. The US has paid $1B of the $3B it committed to the Green Climate Fund, so pulling out saves the US $2B and as a result, the US gets shamed by the rest of the world.
I didn't know about the carbon output threshold in the agreement. That's good to know. So the underlying idea is they must do everything possible to keep it under the 2 degree threshold. If the situation is that dire, there should be significantly more buy-in from the other countries in relation to their carbon emissions, especially China.
 
I didn't know about the carbon output threshold in the agreement. That's good to know. So the underlying idea is they must do everything possible to keep it under the 2 degree threshold. If the situation is that dire, there should be significantly more buy-in from the other countries in relation to their carbon emissions, especially China.

China and India don't care. It will help their overpopulation problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT