5 ms·

Here you go: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ It’s the report from 2014, the updated one will come next year. It’s a few

• adam_arthur 5y ago
  Exactly as I said, studies have been done. So where is that bubbling into discourse? Saying wildfires and floods, in a hand-wavey sense, makes you sound quite uninformed and doesn't inspire much call to action. You have to connect the direct costs and benefits to the individual if you ever want to persuade somebody. So can you explain to the voter in Michigan why raising gas by 50 cents is worth policy X? Just as an example. The truth is that if you work out the math, it's unlikely to be very persuasive at all, because most negative ramifications of climate change will only be felt far in the future while costs to mitigate are immediate. But the whole discussion around policy is meaningless. The obvious solution to global warming is to make alternative energy more cost effective than fossil fuels. Then people will switch to it without any compulsion simply due to the economics being more favorable. For example, the majority of people will likely switch to electric cars once they're cheaper than gas cars (accounting for both up front and lifetime costs). We don't need legislation forcing people to buy electric, they will do it on their own within the next 10-15 years. Similar with solar. At least as of a few years ago, solar on houses was a lousy investment from a cost perspective. As solar becomes more efficient, it starts to be more sensible, and in fact, even obvious to do. By some measures the equilibrium point between fossils and renewable will happen relatively soon... Though there are some domains like aviation where it will take longer. Policy should be aimed towards pushing renewables to be more cost competitive than fossils. And I don't mean through fiat or subsidy, but through improve d efficiency. e.g. Better developed grid makes solar on housing more cost effective by allowing consumer to sell excess back to grid
  • Ma8ee 5y ago
    Here you go about specifics about Michigan: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-crisis-affecting-michigan https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-crisi... Took me all 20 seconds to find. I’m sorry that we in advance can’t tell you exactly how many orphans will die in the fire and how many will be saved. Most of us thinks it is a good idea to try to extinguish the fire before the exact outcome is known. We know enough about fires. And maybe this is what you just don’t get (because you don’t even bother to look at the links that are sent to you): We are facing a catastrophe of gargantuan scale, not more or less inconvenience. And you are counting beans.
    • adam_arthur 5y ago
      Dropping links with 0 analysis or critical thought coming from you. Very compelling! I'm sorry, but no point engaging with you. You use 0 logic or quantifiable statements to support your view. Just hand-wavey and vague statements, exemplifying exactly what I stated. Dropping links with no supporting analysis is not a discussion at all.
      • Ma8ee 5y ago
        But no analysis is needed. You say, A and B don't exist. I say, here it is! That you don't get that just are proved wrong won't any analysis in the world help with. And no, there's no point in engaging. I've learned that people that still don't get it are using all their mental capacity to wilfully not get it. And at this point I don't care what ideological mental locks that prevent people like you to see what is clear and obvious. If thousands of scientific studies and decades of dire warnings from scientists won't convince you, there's just nothing that will.