[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-April-01, 19:26, said:

Well, for example, brothgar didn't use the word "racist" he only observed that "Oh well, we can comfort ourselves in the fact that its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering." I think it is fair to regard this as an accusation of racism.

Wow. I certainly don't see that as fair at all. Richard would not sidle away from the word if he meant it; he is by no stretch of the imagination a pussy-footer.

Why would anyone who does not get comfort from the fact that "its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering," and it is a fact, feel accused of being a racist? I know that political correctness is huge these days, but people are way too sensitive in my opinion.

Seems to me that people most often play the "you called me a racist" card to evade discussing the facts, and this is a case in point.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2014-April-01, 21:16, said:

Wow. I certainly don't see that as fair at all. Richard would not sidle away from the word if he meant it; he is by no stretch of the imagination a pussy-footer.

Why would anyone who does not get comfort from the fact that "its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering," and it is a fact, feel accused of being a racist? I know that political correctness is huge these days, but people are way too sensitive in my opinion.

Seems to me that people most often play the "you called me a racist" card to evade discussing the facts, and this is a case in point.

Now this is something with which I can agree. Poor people have always suffered more due to their lot in life. In general, they have the lowest paying jobs (if they can even find one), live in the least desireable locations, eat less nutritious food, and have less access to clean water and medicine. Earlier statements that prevention will hit this group hardest is certainly true, as it limits growth options. Adaption has a different effect. Those living in areas deemed least likely to be adversely affected by rising global temperatures (i.e. Africa) would feel the least pinch, and be better served than preventive measures. Other areas, like Bangledesh, have the most to lose should sea levels rise substantially. In general, tropical areas would be least affected by rising temperatures, and these areas harbor the highest percentage of people in need. Consequently, prevention strikes them proportionately harder than adaption.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-April-01, 21:16, said:

Wow. I certainly don't see that as fair at all. Richard would not sidle away from the word if he meant it; he is by no stretch of the imagination a pussy-footer.

Why would anyone who does not get comfort from the fact that "its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering," and it is a fact, feel accused of being a racist? I know that political correctness is huge these days, but people are way too sensitive in my opinion.

Seems to me that people most often play the "you called me a racist" card to evade discussing the facts, and this is a case in point.

There is a very great difference between saying ""Most of the people who will be affected by this are brown and black" and "we [presumably "we" means "you" since I don't imagine Richard feels comforted by it] can be comforted by the fact that most of the people affected will be brown and black". You really don't see a difference here? Do you think, in this case, "we" includes the speaker? That Richard finds this comforting? I would make no such charge about Richard, not only because it is impolite but also because I don't believe it for a minute.

There was a young girl recently abducted and murdered. If anyone said "we can be comforted by the fact that she was black" I would be beyond stunned.

Richard of course can tell us whether he himself is comforted by the fact that most of the affected people will be brown or black. Imagining him doing so brings the point home. Nothing he has ever said would lead me to believe he is comforted ny this. I don't even know anyone who would be comforted by it.

It's not at all a matter of critical correctness. It is not my opinion, whether politically correct or politically inciorrrect, that the posters here are comfoted by the fact that people who will suffer are black or brown. Who do you think finds this comforting? I can assure you that I do not. Until Richard's post, I would have trusted that such assurance was unnecessary.

[Winstonm]

I think it is important to factually challenge my own thinking and this leads occasionally to data that supports my notions. I think this new study may shed some light on the whys of climate denial and cries for non-action.

From New York Magazine

Quote

A new political science paper by Matt Grossman and David Hopkins bears out this way of thinking about American politics. The authors find a fundamental asymmetry between the Republican and Democratic coalitions. They examined survey results and other data among voters, activists, and elites, and found that Republicans express their beliefs about government as abstract ideology (big government is bad) while Democrats express their beliefs in the form of benefits for groups.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-31, 16:13, said:

The sad thing about this is that adaptation is much much expensive than prevention.

Oh well, we can comfort ourselves in the fact that its mainly brown and black people that will end up suffering.

It is totally obvious to me that this statement carries a sarcastic tone, and is expressly intended to mean that many people accept climate change because they believe it affects certain races disproportionately. Therefore this is an accusation of racism, against an unspecified group, and I do believe hrothgar intended it exactly this way.

It does not seem to target any specific individual, including forum posters; although I would not be at all surprised if hrothgar intended this also.

[helene_t]

Daniel1960, on 2014-April-01, 08:49, said:

While local effects may differ, adaptation would better serve the peoples of Africa.

I agree with most of this but rising temparature itself (as opposed to rainfall and sea level rise) must be more attractive for people who live in cold areas. Russia and Canada may see their growing season expand.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-April-02, 05:59, said:

Those living in areas deemed least likely to be adversely affected by rising global temperatures (i.e. Africa) would feel the least pinch, and be better served than preventive measures.

I really don't see that global warming benefits Africa at all.



Seems to me that Northern Europe, Russia, and Canada stand to gain at the expense of more southern regions.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2014-April-02, 07:46, said:

It is totally obvious to me that this statement carries a sarcastic tone, and is expressly intended to mean that many people accept climate change because they believe it affects certain races disproportionately. Therefore this is an accusation of racism, against an unspecified group, and I do believe hrothgar intended it exactly this way.

It does not seem to target any specific individual, including forum posters; although I would not be at all surprised if hrothgar intended this also.

This certainly is my view. None of us will curl up and die over this, mostly I think that such phrasing is a distraction. There have now been several posts, mine and others, about how such a statement is to be understood. It's true that I think it is obvious how it is to be understood, others apparently think differently. I'm prepared to move on.

[Winstonm]

I don't think Richard will be shy about telling us his precise meaning and who his intended target was. Myself, I did not take it as a racist comment but more intended as a jab at the idea of elitism and American exceptionalism.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-April-02, 05:59, said:

Other areas, like Bangledesh, have the most to lose should sea levels rise substantially.

You don't seem like the sort who'd advocate shooting folks who try to move to higher ground. What sort of adaptation do you recommend to deal with this? What about Netherlands and Florida?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-April-02, 09:32, said:

I don't think Richard will be shy about telling us his precise meaning and who his intended target was. Myself, I did not take it as a racist comment but more intended as a jab at the idea of elitism and American exceptionalism.

I did not say Richard's statement was racist, not did anyone else. It did, very much, sound to me like an accusation that others are. So I will be clear and then drop it. :
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that anyone contributing to this thread or any other topic on bbf is a racist.
This is my last comment on this subject.

[Daniel1960]

helene_t, on 2014-April-02, 07:53, said:

I agree with most of this but rising temparature itself (as opposed to rainfall and sea level rise) must be more attractive for people who live in cold areas. Russia and Canada may see their growing season expand.

This is certainly true. Global temperatures have increased most during the coldest periods; nighttime, winter, and towards the Arctic. This has reduced the occurrance of frost in the the mid-latitude agricultural regions (not just Canada and Russia, but most of Europe and the U.S.), and already increased the growing season by two weeks or more. In Africa, the temperature change has been much less, with no direct impact on agriculture. The increase in oceanic temperatures has led to increased rainfall in most of Africa, resulting in higher crop yields. All agricultural regions stand to gain from the CO2 fertilization effect.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-April-02, 10:23, said:

I did not say Richard's statement was racist, not did anyone else. It did, very much, sound to me like an accusation that others are. So I will be clear and then drop it. :
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that anyone contributing to this thread or any other topic on bbf is a racist.
This is my last comment on this subject.

I hope you didn't think my comment was directed at you at is was not - simply my take on the mini-controversy. This, also, is my last post about that little storm.

[y66]

From How to Think Like the Dutch in a Post Sandy World:

Quote

Last October, six months after Ovink came to the U.S., he stood onstage in an auditorium at New York University and gazed out at more than a thousand people: mayors, engineers, urban designers, power-company representatives, students and community activists. They jostled shoulder to shoulder to study large panels colorfully outlining approaches for dealing with beaches, rivers and cities. The crowd for the breakfast gathering was so much bigger than organizers expected that there was near chaos when the coffee ran out. To Ovink’s amazement, virtually all relevant parties in the Northeast have grown receptive to what he has to say, with nary a word about angels. “It’s weird!” he said with evident satisfaction.

Last summer, the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force issued its report of recommendations for long-term change in the U.S., and it was filled with Ovink-like ideas. Among the recommendations: The Northeast has to work more to utilize existing ecosystems, like dunes and undersea barriers. Artificial storm-surge barriers need to be created in some places, but only as part of the larger regional picture (for example, if a barrier had gone up near the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge between Staten Island and Brooklyn during Sandy, it could have actually increased flooding in Manhattan). The recommendations also include things like revamping wastewater treatment, making the electrical grid less vulnerable and designing new affordable housing. Small details — like programming elevators not to go to the basement if there is flooding — are given attention. And water containment has to be layered into the urban landscape. Dutch cities now build huge reservoirs under new parking garages. “Every time you rebuild,” Ovink said, “you have to think about water.”

The new buzzword that accompanies all of this — “resiliency” — is intended as a nonpolitically charged way of getting at issues underlying climate change: the need to rebuild in ways that take ecology, economy, infrastructure and weather uncertainty into account. Much of the credit for the change in thinking has to go to Hurricane Sandy itself, which hit in one of the richest, most populous parts of the country and also the center of American media. And it came after a series of catastrophic events — Hurricane Katrina and other storms, but also 9/11 and the banking crisis of 2008 and the subsequent global economic downturn — which, taken together, seemed to solidify the feeling of living in an age of chronic uncertainty.

But Ovink is the man who has harnessed that energy. “We just do whatever Henk tells us,” Donovan said with only a slight smile.

[mike777]

Solar was 100$ a watt in the 1970's.
5$ a watt in 2013
3$ a watt in 2016

So without a subsidy it will be competitive with the grid.

Yes problems remain with solar but a market based economy is coming up with innovations.

Venture capital, risk money, is flowing into renewables seeking big profits. Many will fail and that is ok.

[Cthulhu D]

Daniel1960, on 2014-April-02, 10:35, said:

This is certainly true. Global temperatures have increased most during the coldest periods; nighttime, winter, and towards the Arctic. This has reduced the occurrance of frost in the the mid-latitude agricultural regions (not just Canada and Russia, but most of Europe and the U.S.), and already increased the growing season by two weeks or more. In Africa, the temperature change has been much less, with no direct impact on agriculture. The increase in oceanic temperatures has led to increased rainfall in most of Africa, resulting in higher crop yields. All agricultural regions stand to gain from the CO2 fertilization effect.

The modelling indicates that the impact will be net negative.

Quote

What's harming the third world here is not racism by the first world, but the third world's desire to/insistence on "catching up" - which to them means spewing CO2 into the atmosphere because, after all, they have to industrialize to catch up, and they can't afford all this fancy "clean" energy.

This is seriously lol. Why should they - who's carbon emissions and wealth are a fraction of yours - pay for clean energy when you - the rich American - won't?

It's a relentless comedy goldmine. Maybe we should help them out with the clean energy thing! Maybe we should do it ourselves first? It seems to me that on a solar system or cosmic scale we are all in a very small boat together and relentlessly drilling a hole in the bottom is amazingly dumb. You might not understand the consequences for sure, but projections seem to indicate it will be bad and there is no turning back once we've done it.

[Al_U_Card]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-April-10, 02:38, said:

projections seem to indicate it will be bad and there is no turning back once we've done it.

And there's the rub. Projections based on models that are incapable of accuracy and veracity in the short term but we must accept their ability to determine our fate in the long run? Richard Tol has refused to sign the latest IPCC projections of doom and gloom as they are concentrating on the alarm-aspect to fuel interest in continuing the gravy-train.

As Daniel says, the real problem is energy availability and expense.

[Cthulhu D]

Al_U_Card, on 2014-April-10, 07:39, said:

And there's the rub. Projections based on models that are incapable of accuracy and veracity in the short term but we must accept their ability to determine our fate in the long run? Richard Tol has refused to sign the latest IPCC projections of doom and gloom as they are concentrating on the alarm-aspect to fuel interest in continuing the gravy-train.

As Daniel says, the real problem is energy availability and expense.

Of course, for the same reason that you can beat the casino in the short term but in the long run you're going to lose. Models are probabilistic and it only works over large sample sizes. It's by no means the models are a lock, but we've got a pretty good idea of what it's likely to be.

However, if you think the models are incorrect, how can you possibly think fiddling around with large scale climate engineering when you don't know what will happen is a good idea? Your line of logic is really this:

A) We're making massive changes to the environment!
B) Experts are incapable of predicting what might happen!
C) Because we cannot predict accurately what might happen, all bad outcomes can be discarded in our risk analysis!
D) Therefore we can do anything we want!

This is completely insane. If you think that the best models we have are unable to predict what can happen, how do YOU know what's going to happen when make significant changes to the atmosphere? MORE caution is called for as the changes are irreversible and the risks are unknown. There is no 'whoops we *****ed up guys and ruined the planet, let's just load from an earlier save' It could be a total disaster and turn the earth into a snowball for all we know if the models are busted. If one of the possible risks you have in your risk analysis is 'world wide warfare and starvation, millions die' and that's not even the worst case scenario, you should be pretty god damn careful about your course of action.

To put it in another context, you're literally proposing that when confronted with a new drug of totally unknown properties, we should instead of a very cautious approach of animal trials, clinical studies, etc, the entire human race should just slam back 14 because what could possibly go wrong.

My observation would be that this school of thought is heavily promoted by the Evangelist movement because they are of the view that C) is actually 'God told us nothing bad can happen' and thus it does make sense to do whatever you want. If you believe that a man in a beard speaks down from space.

[mike777]

Indeed if you scroll back I have discussed the "model problem" and have suggested how to approach it.

This entire issue has been discussed often here.

I will skip the details but basically "the harm is concave( a little is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.)

Because of opacity you do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change to be ecologically conservative.

We can put convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution.

Split your sources of pollution among many natural sources.

The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.*

*Volatility and uncertainty are equivalent."
---------------------


More technical but when it comes to models we need to consider many issues such as:
1) skin in the game
2) optionality
3) epiphenomenon
4) the rise of spurious relationships
5) bias
6) fooled by data
7) it is very very difficult to get funding to replicate and reject existing studies.

[billw55]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-April-10, 17:48, said:

Your line of logic is really this:

A) We're making massive changes to the environment!
B) Experts are incapable of predicting what might happen!
C) Because we cannot predict accurately what might happen, all bad outcomes can be discarded in our risk analysis!
D) Therefore we can do anything we want!

I understand your reasoning. But I think it should be obvious by now that AlUCard does not believe premise A.