4 ms·

It's a proxy for painful changes that will require hard political work. If they used equivalent tons of carbon dioxide, the same discussions would be taking pla

by inimino 10y ago

It's a proxy for painful changes that will require hard political work. If they used equivalent tons of carbon dioxide, the same discussions would be taking place, so what's your problem with it?

wallace_f 10y ago
> will require hard political work. You have bought what they are selling
- inimino 10y ago
  I certainly do buy that painful change is better than the likely outcomes of doing nothing. The idea that climate change predictions aren't science because we must act before the long-term predictions could theoretically be falsified is a bit of a red herring. What exactly would a scientific prediction look like, then? If extended fully, your argument implies that science can literally never make any policy recommendations.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    I'm saying you've bought into their 'hard political work.' I already said I agree with the idea that we should work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Think about this: Do we need a committee to discuss the number of hurricanes in the year 2019, their magnitude, and whatever other 'hard political work' comes with that? What about earthquakes? What you're buying into is an industry of politics.
    - MawNicker 10y ago
      That's only true if they're actually politicians and not tortured hostages.
    - inimino 10y ago
      If we agree that international action is needed on climate change, how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? If you're arguing that we don't need governments to get involved, I don't see that working out.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        > how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? You're really personally invest in this. If you read the article, you would be able to begin to answer your own question. One way is a carbon tax: there's reasons why economists so vehemently recommend this. It is efficient, uses market forces instead of heavy handed regulation, and doesn't offer free subsidies to polluters (cap and trade systems have already done this). I never said government should not get involved... You should do some reading about environmental economics, and spend some time away from publications published by organizations who have a vested interest in the global warming problem.
        inimino 10y ago
        How is a carbon tax going to get implemented? Isn't there going to be a lot of hard political work between here and there? I mean, we have known about this problem for decades, but little has been done. It's a political problem at this point. Any solutions are going to hurt certain industries, affect national economies, cause some job losses, and all of that means politics. Who are you reading, then?

by inimino 10y ago

It's a proxy for painful changes that will require hard political work. If they used equivalent tons of carbon dioxide, the same discussions would be taking place, so what's your problem with it?

wallace_f 10y ago

> will require hard political work. You have bought what they are selling

inimino 10y ago
I certainly do buy that painful change is better than the likely outcomes of doing nothing. The idea that climate change predictions aren't science because we must act before the long-term predictions could theoretically be falsified is a bit of a red herring. What exactly would a scientific prediction look like, then? If extended fully, your argument implies that science can literally never make any policy recommendations.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I'm saying you've bought into their 'hard political work.' I already said I agree with the idea that we should work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Think about this: Do we need a committee to discuss the number of hurricanes in the year 2019, their magnitude, and whatever other 'hard political work' comes with that? What about earthquakes? What you're buying into is an industry of politics.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    That's only true if they're actually politicians and not tortured hostages.
  - inimino 10y ago
    If we agree that international action is needed on climate change, how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? If you're arguing that we don't need governments to get involved, I don't see that working out.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      > how is that going to happen without all the political machinery? You're really personally invest in this. If you read the article, you would be able to begin to answer your own question. One way is a carbon tax: there's reasons why economists so vehemently recommend this. It is efficient, uses market forces instead of heavy handed regulation, and doesn't offer free subsidies to polluters (cap and trade systems have already done this). I never said government should not get involved... You should do some reading about environmental economics, and spend some time away from publications published by organizations who have a vested interest in the global warming problem.
      - inimino 10y ago
        How is a carbon tax going to get implemented? Isn't there going to be a lot of hard political work between here and there? I mean, we have known about this problem for decades, but little has been done. It's a political problem at this point. Any solutions are going to hurt certain industries, affect national economies, cause some job losses, and all of that means politics. Who are you reading, then?