Top Climate Scientist: Climate policies "disaster" "half-assed" "absurd"

Originally posted by sh76
By alarmist, I meant that he's alarmed by the problem, not necessarily that he's overstating it.

I don't know whether he's overstating it or not; I'm not a scientist. My point is that claiming to believe everything the IPCC says then then blandly supporting ineffective half-assed measured is internally inconsistent.

I wonder if you took a poll of practicing, licensed attorneys who passed the bar and finished law school (redundant, maybe, but to be clear that we're talking about full-fledged attorneys),
how many would know the meaning of the world alarmist?
how many would fall for global warming alarmism?

😀
ok, all in good fun.

seriously, I've yet to see convincing arguments that there is an unnatural, man-made climate change going on.

If we trend that way a few degrees a decade, we'll know we should focus our energies there before we're in a full-scale catastrophe.

We're not there, we go from global-cooling frenzies to global-warming frenzies, and back again... hence the phrase climate change.

When the next ice age hits, should we blame ourselves that time?

When did polar ice caps melting from their peaks to now become something that had to completely stop lest it become our fault?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
...

We're not there, we go from global-cooling frenzies to global-warming frenzies, and back again... hence the phrase climate change.

...

it's called bang-bang control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang%E2%80%93bang_control

Originally posted by sh76
By alarmist, I meant that he's alarmed by the problem, not necessarily that he's overstating it.

I don't know whether he's overstating it or not; I'm not a scientist. My point is that claiming to believe everything the IPCC says then then blandly supporting ineffective half-assed measured is internally inconsistent.

Half-assed defined by whom? You? The guy that wants 0% emissions now? 😵

You hide yourself behind supposed ignorance yet you feel confident that it's half-assed because the 0% emissions guy says so?

And even if it's half-assed, it's still an important step to commit to a certain level now and then push for further ones. I have the feeling people really don't really understand how international diplomacy works. It's nearly impossible to get most countries worldwide to agree on anything. You rail about Kyoto, but one of the motivations for this conference is that Kyoto is about to run out. We really wouldn't be here without "half-assed" measures, but these allow you to go to the next step. Try to leap-frog them and you'll end up with nothing.

But the point is - still - that if the most pessimistic forecasts are correct, 'committing to a certain level now' (that allows some countries actually to increase their emissions, or at least to reduce their emissions to a degree that those most pessimistic assessments suggest would be too little) is pointless.

If Kyoto has been a success, pegged against the most pessimistic assessments, then another fudge along the lines of Kyoto ought to suffice; if, however, as many MMGW groups asert, Kyoto was a fudge too far with little concrete and meaningful to show for it, the disvalue of horse-trading, politicking and a Dutch auction in emissions is clear, and another treaty reached by the same means will be just as valuable as Kyoto.

I don't think it's the case that sh76 doesn't understand how international diplomacy works. Rather, I think he is suggesting that - on the basis of the most pessimistic assessments - conventional international diplomacy does not and cannot work to combat MMGW. If we face the catastrophe the most dire predictions suggest, that form of diplomacy is only so much futile humbug and pissing in the wind.

Originally posted by DrKF
But the point is - still - that if the most pessimistic forecasts are correct, 'committing to a certain level now' (that allows some countries actually to increase their emissions, or at least to reduce their emissions to a degree that those most pessimistic assessments suggest would be too little) is pointless.

If Kyoto has been a success, peg ...[text shortened]... ions suggest, that form of diplomacy is only so much futile humbug and pissing in the wind.

Same mistake. That supposes that the treaty now will be unchangeable.

We can reduce now in line with the more realistic scenarios and monitor the situation. I find it ridiculous to have this all-or-nothing approach to be honest and it stinks of typical populism. In politics, the optimum policy is the good policy's worst enemy.

If international diplomacy doesn't work, then what? War? Give up? What is "unconventional international diplomacy"?

Originally posted by Palynka
Same mistake. That supposes that the treaty now will be unchangeable.

We can reduce now in line with the more realistic scenarios and monitor the situation. I find it ridiculous to have this all-or-nothing approach to be honest and it stinks of typical populism. In politics, the optimum policy is the good policy's worst enemy.

If international diplomacy doesn't work, then what? War? Give up? What is "unconventional international diplomacy"?

All that is well and good, provided the most pessimistic assessments are wrong. If they are correct, allowing countries actually to increase emissions is a grave error and thinking we can come back and revisit the issue another.

You make something like that point yourself, when you make reference to 'more realistic scenarios' (qua the most pessimistic scenarios), when the argument sh76 was making was specifically about the assessments and scenarios on the more alarming side of things. Evidently, while believing in MMGW, you don't think the problem to be quite as pressing as some - many, even - suggest.

I'm not sure you're engaging with the point as stated, in the end, but arguing against another point entirely.

Originally posted by DrKF
All that is well and good, provided the most pessimistic assessments are wrong. If they are correct, allowing countries actually to increase emissions is a grave error and thinking we can come back and revisit the issue another.

You make something like that point yourself, when you make reference to 'more realistic scenarios' (qua the most pessimistic ...[text shortened]... engaging with the point as stated, in the end, but arguing against another point entirely.

Are you sure you aren't the one arguing for a different point? Just read his opening post!

He says that all Copenhagen will achieve is to "transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations", unless they commit to his 4 points. I'm saying that this is a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you sure you aren't the one arguing for a different point? Just read his opening post!

He says that all Copenhagen will achieve is to "transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations", unless they commit to his 4 points. I'm saying that this is a false dichotomy.

Quite sure.

"All this picking and prodding about quotas and carbon credits and allowance of per capita emissions for developing countries may be a good way to achieve quasi-socialist side objectives, but it's not going to solve the problem (if, in fact, there is one).

IF there is a major impending climate catastrophe, then the ONLY answer is for EVERYONE to get off their duffs and build and use clean technologies starting NOW and, of course to reduce consumption (as uzless will no doubt tell us). A mild and loophole filled cap and trade, which will serve to do little more than transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations, is a half-assed solution, at best (more like a one tenth-assed solution).

Are you?

Originally posted by DrKF
Quite sure.

"[b]All this picking and prodding about quotas and carbon credits and allowance of per capita emissions for developing countries may be a good way to achieve quasi-socialist side objectives, but it's not going to solve the problem (if, in fact, there is one).

IF there is a major impending climate catastrophe, then the ONLY answer is for EVERYO ...[text shortened]... ons, is a half-assed solution, at best (more like a one tenth-assed solution).

Are you?[/b]

Yes, obviously. False dichotomy.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, obviously. False dichotomy.

Not if the most pessimistic assessments are correct!

Originally posted by DrKF
Not if the most pessimistic assessments are correct!

I'd like to see an assessment where agreeing to carbon emission reductions doesn't lead to any change at all. Do you have it? Or is this interview it?

Like I said, at the very least, it will buy us a bit of time and it will make it easier to agree on further measures if necessary.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'd like to see an assessment where agreeing to carbon emission reductions doesn't lead to any change at all. Do you have it? Or is this interview it?

Like I said, at the very least, it will buy us a bit of time and it will make it easier to agree on further measures if necessary.

I'm left wondering whether you are missing the point deliberately or not. I never suggested that agreeing to C&T reductions through posturing and politicking would have 'no effect' - rather, I pointed out that there are projections that suggest this will be too little, too late.

Unfortunately - not that you could tell - I'm pretty busy at work today, and on a half day, but if you honestly don't know that there are plenty of assessments that suggest that we don't have time to buy with half-measures and that we are on the brink of catastrophe, I'll dig some out through some pretty easy internet searching this evening.

Bear in mind that sh76's argument is about the most pessimistic scenarios, please, otherwise we are talking at cross-purposes.

Originally posted by DrKF
I'm left wondering whether you are missing the point deliberately or not. I never suggested that agreeing to C&T reductions through posturing and politicking would have 'no effect' - rather, I pointed out that there are projections that suggest this will be too little, too late.

Unfortunately - not that you could tell - I'm pretty busy at work today, ...[text shortened]... ]the most pessimistic scenarios[/i], please, otherwise we are talking at cross-purposes.

You miss the point. That's fine.

Originally posted by Palynka
You miss the point. That's fine.

It does seem to be circular, as I think you are missing the point.

As you say, fine.

Originally posted by DrKF
It does seem to be circular, as I think you are missing the point.

As you say, fine.

If you say so. 😵