The Glade 4.0

In that case, I'd give partial support to your earlier post about the issue.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So what kind of non-governmental market solutions do you think there are for classic environmental externalities like pollution, watercourse changes (i.e. dams), overfishing, deforestation, etc.? I know there's Coase, but I'm sure you're familiar with all the real world issues involved with that.

RangerDave:

That depends, quite honestly, on where you situate ownership of certain items and properties. At some level, assuming a state-level government exists, that state-level government has property of its own, whether it was ceded by citizens, seized, or purchased, etc. That complicates things, because you can't use direct and demonstrable personal harm as your sole mechanism for initiating corrective action. Government created externalities, however, diminish the parties involved in the transaction and create barriers to fair trade and level market circumstances. The political argument, at least insofar as we're concerned with your general disposition, would be that government regulation creates a participant neutral playing field for transactions and exchanges, but not necessarily for the long term use of a piece of property. That is, the players have equal footing in the exchange, because of the government, but depending on use the recipient party may be subject to more externalities created by the government in question.

In terms of the specific impacts, I'm a big fan of NGO Custodians for things like Wildlife Management Areas, shared resource zones, etc.

_________________

Here's a one-liner for you:
Wanna fight global warming? Eat bugs!

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/eat-m ... ed-nations

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So, are scientists just retarded? 97% of peer reviewed studies agree that anthropogenic climate change is a occuring: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The 97% is the number of self-rated papers that agree there's a consensus.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Emphasis mine.



97% of studies that reached any kind of consensus agreed that humans are causing climate change. Can't really count the ones that didn't state any cause, can we?

It's even more convoluted than that.



But even if 97% of scientists agreed that humans are influencing the Earth's climate (it should be higher than 97%...everything and everyone influences the Earth's climate), that doesn't actually mean anything by itself.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So you've highlighted an instance of begging the question. Awesome.

That attitude you highlighted is the entire problem. From the day that the term "global warming" became popularly known, it's been treated as a given, and the dispute is that contradictory research simply isn't being permitted or published by the scientific community.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Nah, just less credible and more biased than partisan politicians and media personalities, industry lobbyists, and skeptics with six and seven figure book deals. Obviously.

It's not considered "a given" out of nowhere, DE. These studies have been going on since the 90's and most scientists at this point are convinced.

This goes over everything much better than I could or would want to - http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-perc ... -2013.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2 ... 024024.pdf

Methodologically speaking, all your study says is ...

97.2% of scientists publishing articles blaming human beings for global warming believe human beings are causing global warming.

_________________

We've been going over this for 6 or 7 years as well. You do remember a certain person that claimed any disagreement was from an "industry shill"? That's the problem. He's not the only one out there, and as soon as global warming was mentioned, the attitude expressed to the public was "it's a given." You do realize that a consensus arrived at by deciding a certain conclusion must be true, then looking for ways to confirm it is a problem?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That is not what it says.

So you're contending that the scientists publishing the abstracts endorsing the consensus are different from the scientists that make up the consensus?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure; I just don't believe that's even close to what happened in the scientific community on this issue.

Which is fine, since in both cases some in excess of 35% of the total abstract and article pool expressed no position either way on anthropogenic global warming. In self-review, 35.5% of articles had no opinion on the matter. You are misquoting that abstract and its resultant article gloriously.

_________________

DE:
I'm saying they didn't publish them or perform the studies with the intent of blaming humans. They did the studies and 97% concluded that humans have made/continue to make an impact. There's a difference.

Khross:
To not state a conclusion does not automatically mean that they wouldn't conclude the same thing if they were to say something. 97% of the papers that did state an opinion said humans contribute to warming. We can't really count the papers that abstained, nor can we assume their reasons for doing so, can we?

None of that goes into why we should care. There are several reasons why this needs to be stated:

(1) What is the effect going to be? Worst-case scenarios by scientists say Earth's temperature might climb by as much as 2 degrees over the next century. Earth has been 8 degrees warmer than it is now and this did not cause the earth to become uninhabitable. In fact, it was probably MORE habitable than it is now. Two degree is not going to cause the oceans to rise enough to even make New Orleans uninhabitable. It's not going to significantly decrease crop production in the tropics, but may substantially increase crop productivity in cooler climates. Why is even this worst case scenario a problem?

(2) Even if it is a problem, what difference can we make? If we stopped all greenhouse emissions now (an impossibility), would it stop warming in time to make a difference? And even if so, the only clean energy source we have that can conceivably fill our needs is nuclear power, and the environmental lobby hates it worse than it hates oil. Our energy requirements will not go down. The only way to meet the environmental lobby's demands is to cut Earth's population by about 90%. How's that for a solution?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Except we know categorically that this is what happened ... I'm amazed you've forgotten about the emails from the big climatology lab in England that got leaked talking about controlling publication of dissenting papers, etc.

_________________

Hmm. I think we can go a step further. 100% of studies by the team of John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce to verify that there's a consensus on global warming report that 97.2% of scientists publishing articles blaming human beings for global warming believe human beings are causing global warming.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

At what point was the scientific community looking at "global warming" (the older term used intentionally) when the public was NOT being told steps had to be taken to prevent it? We've been hearing about the need for new regulation since at least 1991; I remember all sorts of panic-y videos about how we'd be out of water next wekk if Things Weren't Done back in high school.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, and Lenas, pulling information from the website where you found the article is probably a bad idea ...

It's a known bias site.

_________________

Some people talk a lot of trash on the internet about there being too many people, but I don't see any of them volunteering to be the ones to leave.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If my job depended on grants by organizations that receive grants by government to operate and the existence of my employer was directly correlated to my findings...

If the scientists want to be scientists they wouldn't need to cherry pick their data selections so they get the results they wanted nor would they have to insert some functions that manipulate data to say what they want.

I mean 100% of scientists believed in Piltdown man so...

Science is about the quality of work not mass consensus.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville