4 ms·

But what would we do, how are we going to tell China or India, sovereign nations whose people are emerging from abject poverty, to knock it off? These nations a

by Agustus 11y ago

But what would we do, how are we going to tell China or India, sovereign nations whose people are emerging from abject poverty, to knock it off? These nations are on a year over year increase path that by 2030 will see them doubling their CO2 emissions. Are you willing to give them money and how much, what if they do not use it for appropriate actions? Are you willing to force them to change, how do you propose forcing them? Are you willing to wage American lives now for a future probability? The United States of America has done a great job reducing its environmental impact. Back in the day it was a rare event to see stars in Los Angeles because of the fog (the gaseous burning orb ones not the celebrities), but thanks to the EPA, it is a common occurrence now.

coldpie 11y ago
I don't know. I agree it's hard. But we need to stop allowing people who deny it's a problem to have positions of power. It's time to acknowledge that the problem exists and start finding solutions for it.
- tertius 11y ago
  The way politics works in this case would then be to vote those out of office who challenge these changes. The problem with this is that the populace won't because they are skeptical, for very good reasons. They see models not working (i.e. alarmism backfired), they see IPCC authors leaving and denouncing authorship because they view the report as too alarmist. They see people warning of "we'll have the worst hurricane seasons ever in the next 5 years!" and then very little happening. Alarmism has an unfortunate contribution to skepticism (while not the intended result of action) that will keep skeptics in power. And I think this is a good thing. You advocate for people like Smith to not have positions of power. You should also look at people on the other end of the spectrum, alarmists, who have power and try to use it to incite action. That backfires and we move nowhere. Skepticism, as I mentioned before, is a natural reaction to this. Change needs to come from both sides.

by Agustus 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

I don't know. I agree it's hard. But we need to stop allowing people who deny it's a problem to have positions of power. It's time to acknowledge that the problem exists and start finding solutions for it.

tertius 11y ago
The way politics works in this case would then be to vote those out of office who challenge these changes. The problem with this is that the populace won't because they are skeptical, for very good reasons. They see models not working (i.e. alarmism backfired), they see IPCC authors leaving and denouncing authorship because they view the report as too alarmist. They see people warning of "we'll have the worst hurricane seasons ever in the next 5 years!" and then very little happening. Alarmism has an unfortunate contribution to skepticism (while not the intended result of action) that will keep skeptics in power. And I think this is a good thing. You advocate for people like Smith to not have positions of power. You should also look at people on the other end of the spectrum, alarmists, who have power and try to use it to incite action. That backfires and we move nowhere. Skepticism, as I mentioned before, is a natural reaction to this. Change needs to come from both sides.