Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (Score 1) 137

by khallow (#47770665) Attached to: Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

There already is climate change. Acidic oceans making shell formation difficult to impossible for baby clams in the NW coastal areas, species migration to higher elevations, entire forests decimated by insects that don't die due to global warming.

Acidic oceans has been a problem in the pacific northwest of the US long before someone thought to blame climate change for it. Species have been migrating to higher elevations for ten thousand years. And there wouldn't be that decimation of forests without those invasive species - which is not a climate change-related issue.

This is a typical case of confirmation bias. Find a bunch of bad things happening (some which have happened probably for millions of years as in the case of the local ocean acidification) and blame it on a nebulous "climate change".

But keep denying it, if you want.

Comment: Re:Delayed action (Score 1) 379

by khallow (#47770483) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
It helps if the tragedy of the commons problem is actually a real problem.

We can, however, use more energy by burning inexpensive fuel which consumes O2 and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and we don't, as individuals or as companies, have to pay for that "externality".

What's the amount of that "externality" per gallon? Is it a few pennies or a few dollars? And if people pay for the externality and still drive, what is it to you?

Comment: Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (Score 1) 137

by khallow (#47770267) Attached to: Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering
Adapt is the obvious choice. I think it's a huge indication of the collective head-in-ass thinking about climate change debate that adaptation was allowed to be rhetorically ruled out from the beginning by the parties that had the most to gain from exaggerating the effects of global warming.

Are we honestly worried that someone will be unable to move out of their home in a few centuries (even though the people and the home will likely be gone long before any such need to adapt would occur)? Or that societies that can move their populations every five years and rebuild every building they have in thirty, somehow can't move people around to avoid serious harm from climate effects that take centuries to manifest?

As to agriculture, global warming actually results in an increase in arable land (due to the warming of the northern hemisphere). And one of the greatest food crop reductions of recent years (including droughts and such) came from subsidizing US corn production for biofuels (with carbon dioxide emission reduction being one of the flimsy rationalizations for implementing this program).

I think here the challenge won't be adapting to climate change. It will be noticing climate change.

Comment: Re:Ah good, the most important point addressed (Score 1) 137

by khallow (#47770053) Attached to: Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

Oh so now the climate's really important to you?

That never stopped being important. There's just two things people tend to forget. First, they have yet to demonstrate a serious threat to said climate (or from ocean acidification for that matter). Second, climate is not the only thing I consider important.

A good way to keep a few billion people from starving to death is to have a few billion less people in the future. We're starting to get population levels under control, so we're on the right path as long as we never, ever follow the advice of the nutball economists suggesting we should increase poopulation levels to keep their silly game running (I guess we need more unemployed people?).

And that's one place where modern CO2-belching civilization helps big time. Every bit of increasing technology and wealth results in lower human fertility. Native populations of most of the developed world reproduce at below replacement rate.

If you're going to replace that with something "greener", you need to consider whether you will destroy that advantage in the process. For example, a global carbon emissions reduction scheme that creates a huge pile of high fertility poor people isn't going to work.

Comment: Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (Score 1) 137

by khallow (#47768379) Attached to: Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

I did say removing tax exemptions and subsidies for fossil fuels.

Well, that gets into a new area of debate. Most of the parties which pay subsidies for oil are OPEC countries which have little interest in stopping such payments. In comparison, your average developed world country just isn't kicking that much out in subsidy. Most of the remaining subsidies are of the sort given to similar industries (such as the accelerated depreciation schedule given to resource extract industries, for example). I include the US military-industrial complex in that - which is really a subsidy for defense rent-seekers than oil producers.

Then there are the fantasy numbers attached to the alleged environmental harm of petroleum. Sure, if oil really did have a huge global warming externality attached to it, then yes, you could reasonably consider that akin to subsidy.

I don't consider complaints about petroleum subsidies very serious, when they ignore both that much of the alleged subsidies are either outside the control of the country they reside in or imaginary.

Comment: Re:Ah good, the most important point addressed (Score 1) 137

by khallow (#47768221) Attached to: Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

No point having a nicer climate for a little while as we set the stage for an oceanic mass extinction.

Because we have nothing better to do? Like keep a few billion people from starving to death? Or managing an industrial civilization through a difficult time for a few centuries? Or merely to have a nicer place to live?

There's plenty of reasons to have a nicer climate, even if you choose not to recognize those reasons.

Comment: Re:Kochs will ruin capitalism by short sighted gre (Score 1) 489

by khallow (#47768107) Attached to: Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

No, investment implies a CHANCE to positive return.

Not different enough to matter for this discussion.

That's not going to pay the bills especially when you have a better funded opposition playing the same game.

...and here you are, attributing so much to the mystical power of money. Amusing.

It's a context-based argument. Even if you happen to have a viewpoint that puts undue emphasis on the power of money, you have to explain why the Koch brothers' money goes so far, but not money spent by various governments and NGOs.

Comment: Re:Kochs will ruin capitalism by short sighted gre (Score 1) 489

by khallow (#47764305) Attached to: Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group
Investment implies positive return - getting more out than you put in. All I see here is vague talk about how the Koch brothers are gaining "political power". That's not going to pay the bills especially when you have a better funded opposition playing the same game.

Comment: Re:Time to relocate? (Score 1) 88

by khallow (#47761111) Attached to: Western US Drought Has Made Earth's Crust Rise

You find pictures and videos of the said floods, hurricanes and so on, dead and displaced people and comparisons made by scientists to be inadmissible as evidence?

Of course, I find them inadmissible. You should too. Storms and such will continue to happen even if they are growing less frequent rather than more frequent. Evidence distinguishes between theories. The above information doesn't do that.

OTOH, "comparisons made by scientists" is so profound nebulous and unscientific a term, that it doesn't even qualify as information. I can find "comparisons made by scientists" to "prove" a huge variety of conspiracy theories or pseudoscience theories. That's in fact a standard tool of the trade to add a veneer of authority to all sorts of crazy assertions.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A black panther is really a leopard that has a solid black coat rather then a spotted one.

Working...