UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Phatscotty]

Just quote me where I say, "our fiscal situation is nothing to be alarmed about." The problem is... you can't. Why? Because you're making up shit to avoid the main point: you are a hypocrite.


And, your latest post is another example of a classic Phatscotty dodge. Just keep ignoring the valid points against you by throwing up a smokescreen. This time you're trying to drag me into a debate about fiscal policy, which is besides the point because the point is that you're a hypocrite.

No, you dragged yourself into a conversation between me and Mets, in which Mets dragged a comment from a different thread about fiscal policy. It' not complicated stuff, well maybe to someone who doesn't know what the hell is going on. You haven't made any points, valid, invalid, or otherwise. You are making shit up and dodging. You are a dishonest hypocrite.

[Dukasaur]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/12/09/249728994/what-happened-on-easter-island-a-new-even-scarier-scenario


Read it. Or don't.

[mrswdk]

Well if that's an accurate prediction then our environment will change, humans will adapt and humanity will be content with its new situation. And if the future really were to play out like that, then what's the fuss about?

[mrswdk]

That said, I don't think the case of Easter Island is a particularly good metaphor for climate change.

[Dukasaur]

That said, I don't think the case of Easter Island is a particularly good metaphor for climate change.

Actually, I think it's a pretty good example. It's the same thing that's happening all around us, just slightly more extreme.

Well if that's an accurate prediction then our environment will change, humans will adapt and humanity will be content with its new situation. And if the future really were to play out like that, then what's the fuss about?

It's the beauty lost. When 5,000 species of wildflower are driven to extinction, and one subspecies of maize takes its place, it will feed ten billion people, living in the hideous rat cages we call cities. Thousands of square miles of ugliness where once there was thousands of square miles of beauty.

[mrswdk]

Yeah, but people's concept of beauty can also change. When the first railroads were constructed they met with some pretty heavy resistance from people who considered them ugly, industrial scars on the landscape, but now the old steam railways are more often viewed with romance than anything else.

People find beauty in the ruins of Detroit. I imagine a world transformed by man-made climate change would hold the same fascination for future generations.

[DoomYoshi]

The "free" market (as in, a completely unregulated market) cannot solve global warming because the free market does not have to pay for the damage it causes.

Hmm... that doesn't make any sense at all. The free market does, in fact, have to pay for the damage it causes. But I'd like to understand why you think the participants in a free market don't have to pay for damages they cause.

A number of reasons.

1) If you count up the total amount of economic damage that will be caused by global warming, a disproportionate amount is caused by people from the United States, India and China relative to the damage that they will suffer. Developing nations will suffer a much greater amount of damage but will have contributed basically nothing to the severity of global warming. You can be sure that Exxon Mobil is not going to compensate the people of the Maldives for the flooding of their island nation.

USAID is sponsoring a democracy camp for 40 Maldivians. Indirectly, ExxonMobil is paying for that:
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54517#

[Phatscotty]

The "free" market (as in, a completely unregulated market) cannot solve global warming because the free market does not have to pay for the damage it causes.

Hmm... that doesn't make any sense at all. The free market does, in fact, have to pay for the damage it causes. But I'd like to understand why you think the participants in a free market don't have to pay for damages they cause.

A number of reasons.

1) If you count up the total amount of economic damage that will be caused by global warming, a disproportionate amount is caused by people from the United States, India and China relative to the damage that they will suffer. Developing nations will suffer a much greater amount of damage but will have contributed basically nothing to the severity of global warming. You can be sure that Exxon Mobil is not going to compensate the people of the Maldives for the flooding of their island nation.

Hmm, just curious, what is it that makes a developing nation developing? What is it they are trying to develop into? Aren't they trying to be just like us? OR are they really aiming to develop but not have cars or heated homes/air conditioning or airports or a manufacturing sector?