In Case You Doubted the Global Warming Consensus...

[Adam Strange]

The thing that surprised me when I first figured it out is that most big companies actually do want to improve the world, because they live here, too. Many of them also care about the health and welfare of their employees. So most of the companies that I have dealt with are very environmentally friendly. They run into two problems, though. One is that they may want to implement pollution controls, but the cost of doing that is not zero, and if their competition does not have to implement those controls, then they will have a price disadvantage. This is why anti-pollution laws need to apply to everyone equally.

The second problem that they run into is absentee governance, usually in the form of institutions (or worse, a couple of asshole brothers) holding a large share of the company's stock. In this case, the owners can tell the management to produce a profit or they will be replaced by someone who will produce a profit, and they don't care how that profit is made. In these cases, the managers can want to do the right thing, but they also know that if they don't produce, then they will be replaced by someone with lower ethical standards.

That's where we are today.

P.S. I think most businesses have an incredibly hard time getting off the ground because:

1. the new managers are inexperienced.
2. If the company is selling a new product, the company has extra expenses in the form of educating the customer as to why they should buy the product.
3. If the company is competing in a mature market, the big three (or two) have the market pretty much sewn up and are very experienced at crushing competition at all levels.

If you ask new company managers what their biggest problems are, I think you will find that "pollution controls" isn't in the top ten items.

[Singu]

The problem is that potential solutions proffered by people in the global warming camp are economically infeasible. Trying to implement them would ruin the global economy. So, it's not acceptable to the anti global warming people to find a way to cool the planet.

I assume you know that I'm talking about technological solutions.

If they're economically infeasible, then keep improving them until it is. If you don't think that's possible, then it's because such ideas or solutions haven't been prosed in the first place.

Maybe the government can give grants and money to a company or a group of people that can come up with the best solution. It can be any kind of a creative solution.

If we keep up with this rate of global warming, then we're all going to die anyway, so we might as well try to come up with a solution on how to cool the planet.

[Adam Strange]

Sometimes, everyone dies despite everyone's best efforts.

As a guy who proposes solutions to governments and company's problems all the time, I have found that it is good to know the limits, and good to know what is keeping them from finding a solution.

If we keep up with this rate of global warming, then we're all going to die anyway, so we might as well try to come up with a solution on how to cool the planet.

Yes, you'd think that people would do more about this than they are. And they would, if they correctly understood the problem instead of believing what they want to believe.

It turns out that most Americans believed in global warming thirty years ago. But then the Koch brothers engaged in a misinformation campaign and now, the numbers are below 50%, despite the fact that 99% of professional scientists believe global warming is occurring and is man-made.


The Koch brothers, incidentally, are billionaires and own many heavily polluting industries.

[xerx]

Of course, I am not going to deny that. Anyways, I never really denied the possibility of human based climate change being the predominant cause. I just haven't been convinced one way or the other yet.

What amount of non-expertise would it take to convince you?

[Raver]

What amount of non-expertise would it take to convince you?

Unlike you, I am not easily swayed by authority figures so it would take a healthy amount of evidence, logical reasoning, analysis from both expert and non-expert analysis before I can draw any conclusions.

[xerx]

Unlike you, I am not easily swayed by authority figures so it would take a healthy amount of evidence, logical reasoning, analysis from both expert and non-expert analysis before I can draw any conclusions.

does that only conveniently apply to political issues, or would you seriously entertain going to an unlicensed surgeon?

[Raver]

does that only conveniently apply to political issues, or would you seriously entertain going to an unlicensed surgeon?

Obviously the former, what a silly comparison.

[xerx]

Obviously the former, what a silly comparison.

There's nothing silly about it; surgery and climatology both originate in empirical science, meaning that accepting one scientific authority while rejecting another shows a clearly biased approach.

If you'd like to investigate the issue in order to come to your own conclusion, then that's a fine ambition and better than accepting an authoritative opinion. But it takes a university education (or the work equivalent) to get to the level where you can evaluate this type of information objectively-- as in a lot more work than just reading some sceptic blogs and deciding on the basis of gut feeling. And no, science departments aren't indoctrination camps.

I'm not addressing you specifically because I don't know your situation, rather the average sceptic I've met online.

[Singu]

Yes, you'd think that people would do more about this than they are. And they would, if they correctly understood the problem instead of believing what they want to believe.

It turns out that most Americans believed in global warming thirty years ago. But then the Koch brothers engaged in a misinformation campaign and now, the numbers are below 50%, despite the fact that 99% of professional scientists believe global warming is occurring and is man-made.

The Koch brothers, incidentally, are billionaires and own many heavily polluting industries.

Well I do think that despite all this, the world will switch to renewables, only because it makes economic sense. It's already happening in countries like Germany and other places in Europe. All the tech companies are already building their own renewable farms. Renewables are going to be cheaper than even the fossil fuels.

But even that may not be enough, as even in the most optimistic scenario with the CO2 emissions reduced as much as possible, it will still go to dangerous levels.

So the only solution may be to somehow find a way to cool the planet.

[Raver]

@Aramas

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that they believe this baloney:

https://www.livescience.com/62805-mo...stronauts.html

Moon steps from 1969 to 1972 is causing global warming on the moon, seriously?

If the moon is increasing in temperature then that is evidence that the sun is influencing the temperature of the earth. Then the debate revolves around how much of it is the sun and how much of it is CO2. Rather than being 100% certain that it is anthropogenic.

[Aramas]

@Aramas

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that they believe this baloney:

https://www.livescience.com/62805-mo...stronauts.html

Moon steps from 1969 to 1972 is causing global warming on the moon, seriously?

If the moon is increasing in temperature then that is evidence that the sun is influencing the temperature of the earth. Then the debate revolves around how much of it is the sun and how much of it is CO2. Rather than being 100% certain that it is anthropogenic.

What the fuck? Lol! Desperation.

[Singu]

@Aramas

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that they believe this baloney:

https://www.livescience.com/62805-mo...stronauts.html

Moon steps from 1969 to 1972 is causing global warming on the moon, seriously?

If the moon is increasing in temperature then that is evidence that the sun is influencing the temperature of the earth. Then the debate revolves around how much of it is the sun and how much of it is CO2. Rather than being 100% certain that it is anthropogenic.

You didn't actually read the article. It says "astronauts who walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972 kicked aside so much dust that they revealed huge regions of darker, more heat-absorbing soil", not that it was caused by the sun.

And how does the Earth keep its temperature? If you don't understand how this works, then you don't understand global warming. The Earth wouldn't keep its temperature if the Earth can't contain its heat from the sun. And that is done by the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how hot the sun gets, if it weren't for the heat-trapping gases, then the heat will simply dissipate into space.

[Raver]

You didn't actually read the article. It says "astronauts who walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972 kicked aside so much dust that they revealed huge regions of darker, more heat-absorbing soil", not that it was caused by the sun.

I didn't need to read all of it to realize it is complete nonsense just by its premise. I hope you don't really believe that nonsense. Do you really think that a handful of astronauts visiting for 3 years at a tiny part of the moon by kicking the soil is going to make any difference in the temperature of the moon? The moon has no heat trapping gases so I guess they resort to fairy tale stories like heat absorbing soil from rare astronaut visits and the public will eat it up.

And how does the Earth keep its temperature? If you don't understand how this works, then you don't understand global warming. The Earth wouldn't keep its temperature if the Earth can't contain its heat from the sun. And that is done by the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how hot the sun gets, if it weren't for the heat-trapping gases, then the heat will simply dissipate into space.

Then how do you explain the temperature increasing or decreasing in the past dramatically before human interference?

[Singu]

I didn't need to read all of it to realize it is complete nonsense just by its premise. I hope you don't really believe that nonsense. Do you really think that a handful of astronauts visiting for 3 years at a tiny part of the moon by kicking the soil is going to make any difference in the temperature of the moon? The moon has no heat trapping gases so I guess they resort to fairy tale stories like heat absorbing soil from rare astronaut visits and the public will eat it up.

It's a perfectly valid explanation. How else would the temperature of the moon rise up, without anything to absorb the heat? If it reflected solar radiation, then the heat would dissipate into space.

Then how do you explain the temperature increasing or decreasing in the past dramatically before human interference?

The level of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere differed.