Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

There are compelling arguments on both sides. So, the question is, who is right? one thing is certain, one side is wrong, and the other side is right. But who? For the policy makers who are not scientists, we must look at it this way, since we are not equipped with the knowledge to debate those in the know, and there are those in the know who disagree, some for one argument, some for the opposite, so the way we should look at it is:

If we must be wrong, which side would we rather be wrong on?

1. If we side with the climate alarmists, implement their policies, and are wrong, the worst that happens is that we waste money.

2. If we side with the deniers, and we do nothing, and turn out to be wrong, we save money but could experience climate apocalypse

I'm assuming worst case scenario on both. So, given the above, #1 seems the wiser path.

Yes, it's also possible we go with #1 and it was the right choice, but we're too late and climate apocalypse happens anyway, but at least we tried. It's possible we go with #2 and we are right, we save money and there is no climate disaster, but we do not know that, at the outset. For those of us who do not know, what is the wiser gamble?

I know you think you are right, but the other side thinks they are right.

I don't know who to believe, therefore, for me, I believe #1 is the wiser path.

 

Neither are right. Climate skeptics are closer than either side.

 

Here's an idea. It would take a little research but do an analysis as to values of beachfront properties, particularly in Florida and States with a very low coastline. Investors don't give a whip about claims of rising tides due to global climate change or melting ice caps......but you can bet they care a lot about making $$!! I'll venture to say those properties remain very high in value in spite of claims of rising tides over the last many decades. I would find that source far more valuable than those sources making $$ and gaining power be scaring the bejesus out of young impressionable minds full of mush!
On a side note......if we go with your #1 choice The worst polluter, China, eats out lunch competitively and dominates us doing with our liberties exactly as they like. We are enslaved and our air is no cleaner!

 

China has the largest clean energy industry in the world, leading in patents, manufacturing, exports, and installations.

They have cities that have highly serious need for clean energy rather than fossil fuel.

Further, let's remember that the USA leads the world in greenhouse gas pollution per capita.

China is ahead in total greenhouse emissions ONLY because they have more people than we do.

 

They are the worlds biggest consumers of coal energy.

 

How much faster than "leading the world in clean energy" are you demanding that they be?

 

That's been an obvious red flag to me. People care about their money, and if they really thought the worst case climate situation, they wouldn't buy beachfront property. It's eye opening to me that Obama's Martha's Vineyard mansion is 3 feet above sea level. So what does he really believe?

Also, we would be condemning beachfront property as part of any climate policy, but I don't recall that as being part of any proposal. It's almost as if the people who claim to believe it don't really believe it.

 

I see no reason to believe we would be condemning beachfront property.

Some might be condemned by local authorities if mitigation work was deemed necessary. But, that's a local issue.

For example, have you watched the process at the city of Miami Beach?

How many years before the sea rises by 3 feet at Martha's Vineyard- or 1 foot (as I don't know how they are actually measuring the issue there.

There are many who would enjoy living in situations like that, including those wealthy enough no to be dependant on their property value for retirement, or whatever.

There are people living in the city of Miami Beach.

There are people living in New Orleans - the city of multiple serious ocean flooding, experiencing sea rise at the fastest rate of any city in the USA.

 

The issue isn't local regulations but the fact that the market continues to push up the value of property that won't be there according to some scenarios. So either the market is ignoring climate change or they just are not buying it, and willing to put their money down on that belief.

If you do believe it, given that beachfront property is covered by Federal Flood insurance, it's a national issue since we will be subsidizing the loss; the loss to very wealthy people by and large.

Oh by the way, Obama's mansion will be underwater in 80 years according to Extreme Scenario 2100 model.

If you believe that rising sea levels are going to impact the coasts, even a little, why would that be non issue to climate policy?

 

Oh of course! If they really believed what they said several years ago, they would change the name of Miami to Atlantis!

 

I think what the market is doing is calculating present value. It's up to the market to decide the price of land.

One caveat: Buyers need to be informed.

There are people thrilled to live there (or own vacation property there) today regardless of the possible long term investment potential.

In fact, I own similar property on an island. There are parts of the property that are less than 3' above high tide level. There are several buildings over water and I had to have a couple raised, because maximum high tides started washing the undersides. That was expensive!

I think there do need to be limits on what the government insures. I see the same thing happening with Atlantic coast hurricanes or whatever the heck goes on down there. Property gets damaged and rebuilt and then damaged again, then rebuilt again, I've heard.

So, maybe there should be a plan for how federal insurance is ended for properties on the ocean side of some line. Maybe at the time of property sale. Maybe after the first damage claim of any substantial fraction of the building value. Or ???

 

Well you're on the right track. Federal Flood insurance does need to be reformed. Premiums are going up this year, so that's a help, but maybe if the climate activists can pull their attention away from bike trails and other nonsense, they can look at more concrete, useful solutions.

 

I know nothing about federal flood insurance other than that it appears to be being misused.

I have NO idea what you mean by the rest of your post.

 

I have only ever heard compelling arguments from one side, and that is NOT the "climate alarmists" side...

The side that says that "Climate Change" is nothing but a wacky religion that denies logic, science, and mathematics.

I would rephrase it as one side accepts logic, science, and mathematics while the other side rejects all of those things.

See above.

There's no need to be wrong. Just adhere to logic, science, and mathematics and you'll be fine. "Climate alarmists" are wrong because they deny all of those things in order to adhere to their religion that the Earth is increasing in temperature.

The worst that happens is that all life on Earth gets destroyed. Carbon (and CO2) are absolutely essential to the existence of life. Not as bad, but still bad, would be the increase in widespread famines across the world.

Nope. There will be no "climate apocalypse". The reasoning behind that claim of theirs is based in the denial of things such as the laws of thermodynamics, the stefan boltzmann law, and the requirements of statistical mathematics.

Absolutely not! #2 is the only sensible path.

There is no "climate apocalypse". In fact, this buzzword would make for a great addition to my "Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy". I think I'll add it right now.

There is no "climate disaster". (I think I'll add this one in as an alternate way of saying "climate apocalypse").

There is no need to gamble. The "problem" hasn't been defined outside of a few attempts which violate science and mathematics. Much of the terminology used remain buzzwords, which is a violation of logic. Nothing needs to be done, as there is no problem.

The other side rejects logic, science, and mathematics... I don't reject those things. So I am right.

Don't believe in a who... instead, believe in logic, science, and mathematics. Learn a bit about those things and you will begin to see just how loony the global warming cult really is...

This type of ignorance is what would one day destroy all of Earth (if not for Jesus' 2nd coming).

 

It's not so much a "right or wrong" (with regard to whether Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature) but more-so about who is accepting logic, science, and mathematics and who is rejecting them, and the Global Warming religion is outright rejecting those three things in order to adhere to their fervent belief that the Earth is somehow warming (but they can't provide any viable mechanism by which this is occurring, or even how they supposedly know what Earth's temperature is to begin with).

 

This could not possibly be more silly.

There is no possibility that humans could stop the production of CO2 that HUMANS emit, let alone to somehow end the massive natural production of CO2.

Where did you get this idea.

I really want to know, because some source of yours is just plain off their ever loving rocker.

 

No they don't.

Fossils are not used for fuel. They don't burn very well.

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". Natural and life essential gases are not "pollution".

There is no "greenhouse emissions" "problem". It is all fantasy.

 

I asked a question.

What's your answer?

 

Nothing about it is silly, besides the strawmans about it that you create, as you have a vast history of doing...

Never said or insinuated anything of the sort.

The screaming of AGW-proponents is that "atmospheric CO2 levels must be decreased!!!" That's not good for plant life. That's not good for ANY life... Depending on how low people try to reduce those levels, that'll lead to things such as famine or even death of all sorts of life.

From the fact that CO2 is a life essential gas. (IOW, science)

I don't appeal to others to do my thinking for me. I think for myself.

 

There has been enough CO2 for plants for millions of years.

The additional CO2 that human activity has caused is NOT the source of life for plants.

 

As a climate change agnostic you are indeed wise to choose #1, but there are not "compelling arguments on both sides". It's established science. We produce green house gases and the world gets hotter. Simple, there is quibbling about the projections, but the fact remains the climate is changing.

What fascinates me is the psychology of the deniers. As Mr. Catbird demonstrates, there is an ignorance of science, but it has to be a willful ignorance of science because the information is out there. They use that ignorance for their confident rationalizations as to why climate change is a myth. Why go to all that trouble? Why not have an open mind to all the information that is available?

It's okay to be skeptical of the science but after 50 years the evidence is solid and continued disbelief verges on an anti-science ideology. Those that continue to deny probably get their information from the like minded setting up a us or them wall, with no path out. Also, there is the anti big government factor, "elites" telling them what is best for them and corporations spending money to tell the public that the science is not "settled", that we need to wait to do anything, because it will impact profits.

Another psychological impediment to belief in climate change is the enormity of the problem. The life changing efforts that will need to be taken to control the problem. The need to grasp for any evidence that seemingly disproves it, like record freezing temperatures.

 

And leading in greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Hmmm. I don't think you can claim anti-science ideology is the motivation for the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Nir Shaviv.
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

 

And then there's Professor Henrik Svensmark.
FORCE MAJEURE - The Global Warming Policy Foundation
https://www.thegwpf.org › SvensmarkSolar2019-1
PDF
by H Svensmark · Cited by 1 — Svensmark presently leads the Sun–Climate Research group at DTU Space. Acknowledgement. I thank Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, Nir Shaviv and Jacob

 

Oh, I found this after posting the above.
The results show that climate change denial correlates with political orientation, authoritarian attitudes and endorsement of the status quo. It also correlates with a tough-minded personality (low empathy and high dominance), closed-mindedness (low openness to experience), predisposition to avoid experiencing negative emotions, and with the male sex. Importantly, one variable, named social dominance orientation (SDO), helped explain all these correlations, either entirely or partially.