3 ms·

>We have evidence that we are seeing a rise in temperatures For the majority of the earths history, the poles have had no ice on them. Their current existence

by _red 7y ago

>We have evidence that we are seeing a rise in temperatures For the majority of the earths history, the poles have had no ice on them. Their current existence is a holdover from our last ice-age. Wouldn't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are meandering back to its natural state?

throw0101a 7y ago
> Wouldn't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are meandering back to its natural state? Perhaps, but it is a strange coïncidence then that they've been going up since the Industrial Revolution, which also happens to be when humans started releasing a whole bunch of carbon (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere. It took a while for us to develop the science of climatology and then start noticing natural climatic cycles as well as then noticing anthropomorphic climate change (ACC): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology Natural cyclic oscillations are known and have been taken into account: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillat... The possibility of being wrong is there, but here's the thing: if we're wrong about ACC being real, then the worse that will happen is that we move towards more efficient and renewal infrastructure (which isn't a bad thing in itself). If we're right about ACC being real, and do something about it, then we (may) save human civilization. There's not much long-term downside to assuming ACC is real and doing something about it.
- _red 7y ago
  >then the worse that will happen But that's not the "worse that will happen". Go tell a starving 3rd world family that their $300 per month salary will now only buy $200 because you decided its a "risk worth taking".
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Your of course proposing the orthodox neo-liberal do nothing solution. The worst that will happen in that case is your 3rd world family starves to death.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    The carbon use of a family making $300/month is minimal and I would hazard to guess any carbon pricing/capping scheme would effect them minimally. * https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-detail/article/climate-policy-reduces-inequality-in-lower-income-countries.html https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-d... * http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax-could-fight-poverty-and-climate-change-at-the-same-time/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax...
  - mempko 7y ago
    Canada just passed a carbon tax where they take the proceeds and then distribute them to everyone. The lowest income earners are actually getting MORE back from the rebates than what they spend on the tax. So yes, it's possible to not only tax carbon, but do it in such a way that it will help lower-income people.
taeric 7y ago
For the majority of the universe's existence, the Earth didn't. Not exactly a helpful data analysis. So, no. It isn't rational. It is, at best, distractions. And, honestly, folks that peddle these sorts of arguments don't exactly have a history of good faith debates.

by _red 7y ago

throw0101a 7y ago

> Wouldn't it be rational to conclude that earth's temperatures are meandering back to its natural state? Perhaps, but it is a strange coïncidence then that they've been going up since the Industrial Revolution, which also happens to be when humans started releasing a whole bunch of carbon (a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere. It took a while for us to develop the science of climatology and then start noticing natural climatic cycles as well as then noticing anthropomorphic climate change (ACC): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology Natural cyclic oscillations are known and have been taken into account: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillat... The possibility of being wrong is there, but here's the thing: if we're wrong about ACC being real, then the worse that will happen is that we move towards more efficient and renewal infrastructure (which isn't a bad thing in itself). If we're right about ACC being real, and do something about it, then we (may) save human civilization. There's not much long-term downside to assuming ACC is real and doing something about it.

_red 7y ago
>then the worse that will happen But that's not the "worse that will happen". Go tell a starving 3rd world family that their $300 per month salary will now only buy $200 because you decided its a "risk worth taking".
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Your of course proposing the orthodox neo-liberal do nothing solution. The worst that will happen in that case is your 3rd world family starves to death.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  The carbon use of a family making $300/month is minimal and I would hazard to guess any carbon pricing/capping scheme would effect them minimally. * https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-detail/article/climate-policy-reduces-inequality-in-lower-income-countries.html https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/news/information/information-d... * http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax-could-fight-poverty-and-climate-change-at-the-same-time/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/07/how-a-carbon-tax...
- mempko 7y ago
  Canada just passed a carbon tax where they take the proceeds and then distribute them to everyone. The lowest income earners are actually getting MORE back from the rebates than what they spend on the tax. So yes, it's possible to not only tax carbon, but do it in such a way that it will help lower-income people.

taeric 7y ago

For the majority of the universe's existence, the Earth didn't. Not exactly a helpful data analysis. So, no. It isn't rational. It is, at best, distractions. And, honestly, folks that peddle these sorts of arguments don't exactly have a history of good faith debates.