Global Warming models shot to hell!

[Crown]

Your number four could happen, but the world and humanity have survived far worse then this current tiny blip on the radar of global temperature.

But at what cost? Prevention is alway easier, cheaper and more reasonble then cure. Case in point, seat belts in cars, prevent damage to occupants envolved in car accidents, cheaper to istall seat belts than to cure spinal damage, or head injury.

[Nick]

Just for fun, a little decision matrix (oversimplified, but hey, it's not like we're setting official policy here).

First, some admittedly arbitrary numbers:

Probability CO2 is harmful: 50%
Cost of ecological damage caused by unrestrained CO2: -500
Cost of reducing CO2 emisisions: -100

(Those costs are not money, they are 'expected utility' - an attempt to summarise the pros and cons of different outcomes)

Scenario utilities:

Let's reduce the emissions:
Ecologist's are wrong: -100
Ecologist's are right: -100

Let's not reduce the emissions:
Ecologist's are wrong: 0
Ecologist's are right: -500

Given the probability of 50% for the ecologists being right, we get the folliwng expected utilities:

Reduce the emissions: -100
Don't reduce the emissions: -250

And so, the rational course is to incur the cost of reducing the emissions, because the risk of being wrong is too great.

Now, given that the probability that excessive levels of CO2 is harmful is actually greater than 50%, and given that the potential consequences of leaving it unchecked are far more than 5 times the cost of bringing CO2 production down. . . the decision should be even more clear cut.

Oh, this still doesn't mean the Kyoto protocols were necessarily practicable. (Everything I have seen about the protocols indicates it is a case of agreement to the idea that global CO2 emissions need to be reduced, but disputes about the fairness and equitability of the way the protocols distribute the requirements for reductions. A classic example of the tragedy of the commons).

[Sea Skimmer]

You said that America accomplishes more with it's pollution than the rest of the world, not with it's GDP. Now unless you are arguing that pollution = wealth, you really should clarify your meaning. And this isn't a discussion of GDP you nitwit, it's a discussion on how you can justify that 4% of the worlds popullation produces 25% of it's pollution! And then actively campaigns against reform , you try to justify it with GDP, however that is a brain bug. When the debate of CFC's was raging companies were complaining that using non-CFC's the cost of their product would increase, however since all of them were forced to do it, no detrematall effects were caused to the companies, or their profits, since they were all playing the same game, with the same set of rules.

America accomplishes more wealth with its pollution. I can justify it because the world pollutes more to create less. There is greater benefit from America pollution by a factor of three, so if anything, everything should be Americanized. That would give the highest return on the pollution.
So economics don’t matter? That’s what your effectively saying. We'll then why don’t we just close down all factories and base our economies off corn? Better yet, why doesn’t Australia build a giant water pipe to Bangladesh and collect up fresh water, and use that to plant trees in the outback.
That combined with shutting down factories to provide labor for the project would both cut CO2 emissions and the trees would actively soak them up. After all, its not like GDP matters in such things..

Now the rest of your post is quite flawed. Everyone played by the same set of rules, but the product STILL COST MORE, it was just a matter of them ALL costing more. Unless that’s matched by a similar increase in buying power, then all would be hurt since fewer can afford them and fewer products will be bought.

Well I am again unclear as to what you are trying to say, because if you are actually saying that we don't have any scientific proof that CO2 concentration increases heat absorbtion, here is a simple experiment you yourself can perform at home;

Not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that proof does not exist that humanity has put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to be reasonable for these climate changes and that they have in fact been caused by that CO2.
We do however know that such radical climate changes can come about naturally at times when humans numbered less then 5 million.

And as for the Kyoto protocal, I seem to recall that Europe, Australia and Japan were all willing to sign, untill the US backed out. And if the US doesn't sign something, then the rest of the world won't either, it's a sad fact of life.

All of those nations, US included, signed Kyoto. What fell though was ratification to actually bring it into effect. The US was actually around 40th to have its legislative body reject the treaty, France and Italy I'm quite sure had already rejected it. I don't know about the rest

Many months and a new president later the US withdrew from the treaty completely. Months after that a second summit happened in which a new watered down treaty was written and signed, though by many fewer countries.

Only within the last two weeks did it even come into effect when Russia decide that 30 billion bucks in a hard currency was worth signing something which wouldn't acutely limit their emissions or force any reductions.


Now as for you ranting about coming to Australia, I was born and spent the first 7 months of my life in Bahrain, nice sunny place, nice soft baby skin to soak up the UV rays and later spent 1988-90 in guess where? Australia, in Canberra to be specific.

No member of family who was there has gotten cancer, though quite a few who have never left the North Eastern USA except for a couple post cold war trips to Poland or Germany have died of it.

Maybe you should come to America, bring some SPF 100 and a umbrella..


All that said, like most all informal debates on this subject, this one has already gone right full rudder at flank, its going to circle till the end of time. So don't be surprised, or take it as a sign of victory if I don't reply to your response to this, if you make one. However I will read it. Its really just going to be a waste of time, screw the last word.

[Nick]

So wealth is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end?

No wonder your priorities are so fucked up SeaSkimmer - you sound like a Microsoft or RIAA lawyer.

But yes, I do agree that further attempts to reason with you are pointless.

[Sea Skimmer]

So wealth is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end?

No wonder your priorities are so fucked up SeaSkimmer - you sound like a Microsoft or RIAA lawyer.

But yes, I do agree that further attempts to reason with you are pointless.

It the things you can do with wealth that make it worth seeking you dumbass, or did you miss me saying that half way back up the page?
Not pointful to reason with a moron who can't read either.

[Crown]

I am going to start flaming in a moment.

You are arguing that the US GDP = rest of the world, US produces only 25% of the pollution therefore it's a better system.

I am saying that US population 4% produces 25% of the worlds pollution, and that there is something so seriously wrong with that figure! You argue GDP, I argue population, you haven't explained to me, why four fucking percent of the world population contributing to 25% of the pollution is a good thing!

You say that the world should be more American (I am not even going to go there), well that would mean if we do a little math excersise, lets say that there are 100 units of polution being pumped into our eco system per year, and that 25 of these units is being supplied by 4% of the population. Now, lets aslo sate that the total pooulation is 100. So 4 people are contributing 25 units, and 96 people are contributing 75. That means for the four people they are each contributing 6.25 units of pollution each, compared to the 96 contributing only 0.78125 units.

Now if the other 96 people would happen to contribute the same as the four people, that would mean the 100 hundred people would be contributing 6.25 units. Which would give us a total contribution of the entire 100 people of 625 units of pollution! That is (surprise) a 6.25 fold increase of pollution than previoiusly. I think Sea Skimmer that when that happens you will have your 'proof' as to the consequences of human effect on our own eco system.

Now if you wanna get interesting, substitute the pollution units, with actuall numbers, times by 6.25 and see how much we would be dumping then, and the projected results, in all those models you mention and come to your own conclusion.

[Crown]

It the things you can do with wealth that make it worth seeking you dumbass, or did you miss me saying that half way back up the page?
Not pointful to reason with a moron who can't read either.

Well this comming from someone how manages to do so many back flips and avoids the true issue so often, that one wonders if he is a gymnist.

[Nick]

It the things you can do with wealth that make it worth seeking you dumbass, or did you miss me saying that half way back up the page?
Not pointful to reason with a moron who can't read either.

I didn't see you arguing that the medical technologies produced by the US required that level of pollution production. I in no way saw you justifying your ridiculous claim that the US's high GDP directly correlates to a net beneficial effect anywhere other than the US. I in no way saw you arguing that US medical technology is used for anything other than monetary extortion of people in desperate straights, except to the extent the US government feels is necessary to improve its image.

In short, I saw a fucking woeful comprehension of economics' place as a means to an end, since you made no fucking effort to distinguish between GDP, and the underlying social benefits the economic system is intended to bring about.

'Our GDP is high, therefore we are entitled to pollute' is a fucking bullshit argument, and you should know it. Pollution IS a tragedy of the commons, and the ONLY way to fix that is to adjust the markets to deal with it.

The US EPA has already managed it once with sulfur emissions - they brought emissions down to acceptable levels, while minimising the costs shouldered by industry. They can fucking well do it again for CO2 - but, no, clueless right-wing morons like yourself will always argue that 'you shouldn't interfere with our profits, even if there's a chance we are fucking the planet over'.

[Crown]

And once again the profit margin will not be damaged if all industry complise to the same regulations and rules.

[The Kaiser]

Isn't everyone missing the point? Global warming be damned, we're spewing shit in the atmosphere! Nobody with half a brain is worried about some Water World-esque scenario in which the ice caps melt. They're worried about inhailing things that are best left outside our bodies.

You can talk about how harmful reducing emmissions will be to the economy all you want, but if your breathing out a hole in your neck you won't care much about the current state of Wall Street.

[LordShaithis]

Now if the other 96 people would happen to contribute the same as the four people, that would mean the 100 hundred people would be contributing 6.25 units. Which would give us a total contribution of the entire 100 people of 625 units of pollution! That is (surprise) a 6.25 fold increase of pollution than previoiusly.

Only if those 96 people also increased their GDP by 1250 percent. If they were to maintain their current GDP, but with American efficiency, the net result would be a 37.5 percent DECREASE in total pollution. Retard.

[Nick]

You can talk about how harmful reducing emmissions will be to the economy all you want, but if your breathing out a hole in your neck you won't care much about the current state of Wall Street.

Hence why I've avoided the term 'global warming' like the plaque. . .

And despite SeaSkimmer's and GAP's fundamental lack of a grasp on even basic economics, they should at least be able to follow your reasoning above. . .

[Crown]

Now if the other 96 people would happen to contribute the same as the four people, that would mean the 100 hundred people would be contributing 6.25 units. Which would give us a total contribution of the entire 100 people of 625 units of pollution! That is (surprise) a 6.25 fold increase of pollution than previoiusly.

Only if those 96 people also increased their GDP by 1250 percent. If they were to maintain their current GDP, but with American efficiency, the net result would be a 37.5 percent DECREASE in total pollution. Retard.

Ahh comedy, disguised as insult, how very refreshing.

First of all you in-vertibrate, neurologically lacking fuck. Lets actually do some math to see the validity of your erroneous missinformation shall we? Again we will use ratios so that simple people, meaning you, will be able to follow along, okee-day?

Now according to SeaSkimmer, and I assume you are using his figures, since you haven't been bothered to present any of your own. America makes about 50% of the world's GDP right? Now say that the total GDP of the world is $100, and that there are again only 100 people in the entire planet, four of which are Americans. This means that these four Americans alone make $50, and the other 96 people make the other $50. With me so far?

Now four people making $50, breaks down to $12.50 each. ::Hint, devide 50 by 4:: Similarly the other 96 people make $0.52 each, do you need a hint for that too? So by how much do the other 96 people need to increase their earnings to equal that of the four Americans? Well $12.50 divided by $0.52, gives us 24!

That means they requre a 24X increase on their current GDP to equal the American one. So now that we have this figure what does that proove? Well pretty much nothing because if you want to talk about American efficiency, we need to remember that four Americans with their GDP contribute to 6.25 units of pollution. So lets talk about effiecency shall we.

Four people making $50, and contributing pollution units of 25, gives us a ratio of 0.5units/$, that means for each two fucking dollars an efficient American makes, he/she contributes 1 unit of pollution. By contrast, 96 people making $50, and contributing 75 pollution units, gives us an effieciency ratio of 1.5units/$. Wow, these 96 people, sure are being rude by producing 3 times more pollution than the four efficient Americans aren't they?

And if this were the end of the story, you would be right. However it's not. Now these four American's making $50 are producing a total of 25 units of pollution, and these inefficient 96 people were producing 75. So using the American ratio of 0.5 efficiency we get 25 units, check. And the new amount of units for the other 96 people would be 1.5 times $50 gives 75 units of pollution, check. But since these 96 people are not making $50, they are now making 24 times this amount, which is $1200, so this multiplied, by their gross inefficiency is 1800 units of pollution, which would give us a total pollution units of 1800 + 25 = 1825 units of pollution.

Now hold the phone, I know what you are thinking, when I first posted I claimed the pollution increase would be 625 units. How did I get that, I mean I just showed that should the other 96 people increase their GDP to the American level, but maintain the same efficiency as before the number would be 1825 units of pollution!?

The answer you intellectually chalenged ass, is that I did favourable assume that the other 96 people had the same effieciency as the Americans when they reached the same GDP. Observe;

$1200 multiplied by 0.5 efficiency gives us, 600 units of pollution! For a total pollution of 625 units! Yes that is right, I did include American efficiency in the first post. Learn how to read and comprehend and then come back. Dick.

Food for thought four efficient Americans contribute 6.25 units of pollution each, and 96 inefficient 'foreigners' contribute only 0.78125 units each. Moron.

[Lord of the Farce]

Only if those 96 people also increased their GDP by 1250 percent. If they were to maintain their current GDP, but with American efficiency, the net result would be a 37.5 percent DECREASE in total pollution. Retard.

These are my own quick calculations in pseudocode-ish form (which I should get lots of practice in anyway, ).
Anyway...

original total pollution = 100 units
4% of population = 4 people
25% of pollution = 25 units
units per person = 25 units / 4 people
units per person = 6.25 units
new total pollution = units per person * 100
new total pollution = 625 units

Now would you care to show us how you worked out a 37.5 percent decrease in total pollution in similar form?

[jegs2]

Ah, I see some America bashing here ... how utterly shocking .

The most powerful of empires at a given time in history gets to choose what it will do, and the rest of the world can rant and pout or lash out at that empire in a foolish manner. These United States are such an empire at this time. All inferior nations may moan and cry so much as they wish, but such protests are amusingly irrelevant. Those foolish enough to raise arms against us will deal with me and those within my profession, and thus they will do so only within a severely truncated lifespan. Is it fair? Likely not, but that is also irrelevant. It is. That is all that matters. We are the empire. Serve with us or die in vain.

[Colonel Olrik]

We are the empire. Serve with us or die in vain.

You tell'em! Serves them right!
huh.. wait.. were you talking to me?

[Lord of the Farce]

Ah, I see some America bashing here ... how utterly shocking .

The most powerful of empires at a given time in history gets to choose what it will do, and the rest of the world can rant and pout or lash out at that empire in a foolish manner. These United States are such an empire at this time. All inferior nations may moan and cry so much as they wish, but such protests are amusingly irrelevant. Those foolish enough to raise arms against us will deal with me and those within my profession, and thus they will do so only within a severely truncated lifespan. Is it fair? Likely not, but that is also irrelevant. It is. That is all that matters. We are the empire. Serve with us or die in vain.

I think one old saying is appropriate to this: "With power comes responsibility."

[Crown]

Ah, I see some America bashing here ... how utterly shocking .

The most powerful of empires at a given time in history gets to choose what it will do, and the rest of the world can rant and pout or lash out at that empire in a foolish manner. These United States are such an empire at this time. All inferior nations may moan and cry so much as they wish, but such protests are amusingly irrelevant. Those foolish enough to raise arms against us will deal with me and those within my profession, and thus they will do so only within a severely truncated lifespan. Is it fair? Likely not, but that is also irrelevant. It is. That is all that matters. We are the empire. Serve with us or die in vain.

You are correct, if it wasn't America on top it would be someone else, however having said that the only post that I would consider to be American bashing would be my first one, and as I stated in that post, it was full of generalisations. Meaning I know that not every single american thinks that way. Just the more vocally stupid ones.

The rest of my posts were in response to the affore mentioned people, hence the , well rudeness.

[Nick]

We are the empire. Serve with us or die in vain.

I think one old saying is appropriate to this: "With power comes responsibility."

Actually, I've got one old saying, plus an observation:

The old saying:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The observation:
" The US might like to reflect on a reality demonstrated repeatedly in history from the Pharaohs to Alexander, imperial Rome, Napoleon, and the recently ended period of European colonialism – the exercise of great power, without self-restraint, sets up the circumstances of its own demise."

Observation lifted from a great article by Richard Butler in The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 83,00.html

[jegs2]

While I gladly serve these United States and have done so for nearly 15 years, I am not so foolish to believe that our empire will escape the fate of all others throughout history. The question of our demise is not if but when and how. In my opinion, these United States will likely collapse from within (perhaps another, but more factionalized war of sesssion), and likely within the next 50 to 100 years.

Coincidentally, global warming will likely have little to do with it.

[LordShaithis]

Whoops, looks like I made a mistake. If the rest of the world maintained it's current GPD with American efficiency, there would be a full FIFTY percent reduction in pollution. Seems I somehow got it in my head that the US was only twice as efficient as the rest of the world, not three times as was correct.

Crown seems bent on either measuring pollution per capita while ignoring economic output, or concocting bizzare and pointless calculations where every nation on earth has the same economic output as the United States.

If you're waiting for one of us to apologize for the US being the richest nation on earth, keep waiting. Keep waiting, and be glad we don't generate our wealth by as messy and inefficient means as the rest of the world.

(I'd like to see some of the smartasses on this board give us the population/GDP/pollution breakdown for THEIR countries.)

[Priesto]

Global warming is natural, it has nothing to do with us humans as being the cause.The earth goes through different phases in temperature over periods of time.But that could just be my thinking.

[Lord of the Farce]

Crown seems bent on either measuring pollution per capita while ignoring economic output, or concocting bizzare and pointless calculations where every nation on earth has the same economic output as the United States.

It might seem like a high extreme, but it sounds very much like you are saying: "As long as economic output is higher, blanket bombing the entire planet with nukes and rendering it uninhabitable is justified."

You're not trying to say that... are you?


(Edit note: minor corrections in the wording)

[LordShaithis]

For the record, I'd like to see the US use more nuclear power, as well as develop an electric car that isn't a piece of shit. (The former is needed for the latter to have any meaning, since otherwise you're just burning more coal to charge batteries, separate hydrogen from water, or whatever.)

[Nick]

For the record, I'd like to see the US use more nuclear power, as well as develop an electric car that isn't a piece of shit. (The former is needed for the latter to have any meaning, since otherwise you're just burning more coal to charge batteries, separate hydrogen from water, or whatever.)

GM Autonomy. Funky

And once you have hydrogen as an efficient transport mechanism, then there are plenty of ways of gathering energy other than nuclear (which, until we can lob the waste into the sun, has issues).