login about faq

(1). Everyone (and I mean everyone) with any credibility has accepted climate change as something mankind has caused. IPCC, UN, every government, every scientific organization and most scientist

(2). Climate Change will cause ecological and economic issues

Therefore; one of the best ways we have found to be able to reduce CO2 emissions has been governmental intervention. We know this because there is no negative internalization of financial disincentives to not cause Climate Change (such as reducing emissions).

Any evidence for non-governmental means being the best way to combate climate change?

asked Apr 26 '14 at 18:02

TheBucket's gravatar image

TheBucket
64329

Climate change is happening. Human CO2 emissions are accelerating it. That's about all that I believe has been proven.

Whether we're better off trying to combat climate change or better off learning to live with it, I don't think has been proven. What I do think there's evidence of, though, is that markets are better at predicting these sorts of things than governments are.

(Apr 26 '14 at 22:59) anthony anthony's gravatar image

But most scientist and organizations believe WE'RE causing it...and they also believe it will have disastrous effects on the economy. Do you have any cost-benefit analysis of doing-something vs. not-doing-something data? If not why don't you believe the experts?

(Apr 27 '14 at 09:22) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image

Which experts are you talking about, exactly?

(Apr 27 '14 at 14:41) anthony anthony's gravatar image

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Medical Association American Meteorological Society American Physical Society The Geological Society of America [every government academy of science including our own] U.S. Global Change Research Program Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change NASA US Government UN

(nasa has a website with thousands of organizations supporting this) THIS IS FACT

(Apr 27 '14 at 22:20) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image

Where's the evidence?

A list of organizations (without any commas, even) isn't all that useful.

(Apr 28 '14 at 17:48) anthony anthony's gravatar image

Sorry when I was typing I though everything would be separated by a new line. Anyway why are you asking for evidence when EVERY scientific organization in the world is in support of this thesis? Do you need this much evidence to be convinced to every scientific process such as evolution or the age of the earth?

BUT...If you need actual evidence I'll reference you to the IPCC's report from 2013....https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/....which include data concluding the theory from oceans, biology, climate, atmospheric conditions, radioative forcing, paleoclimate archives etc etc etc etc

(Apr 28 '14 at 18:45) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image
1

I need evidence to be convinced of anything. Don't you?

(Apr 28 '14 at 19:14) anthony anthony's gravatar image

I gave you the link to a website which contains thousands of pages of scientifically reviewed and published data from the highest authority on climate and atmosphere in the world and you won't believe me? Not only that I gave you a link to NASA's cite which references hundreds of other highly respected scientific organizations which all agree.

Please answer the question instead of avoiding it to protect your world view.

(Apr 29 '14 at 00:17) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image

When did I say I don't believe you? You asked "Anyway why are you asking for evidence when EVERY scientific organization in the world is in support of this thesis?" I responded with "I need evidence to be convinced of anything. Don't you?"

Now, what other question do you want me to answer?

By the way, a link to a website which contains thousands of pages of scientifically reviewed and published data isn't particularly useful for these purposes. I'm not about to read 1000 pages just to fish out the answer to my question, which was about a cost-benefit analysis of doings something v. nothing.

(Apr 29 '14 at 07:53) anthony anthony's gravatar image

So would you (or possibly other objectivist) be opposed to a cost analysis of climate change?

(Apr 29 '14 at 21:14) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image

As long as it's privately funded I don't see the problem.

I assume insurance companies have already done such an analysis, in fact.

(Apr 30 '14 at 09:37) anthony anthony's gravatar image

Great! I mean if it was determined that we can reasonably expect far more damage economically by not doing anything to slow the pace of climate change than the economic cost of doing something, would that sway your opinion on governments role in the matter?

(Apr 30 '14 at 23:31) TheBucket TheBucket's gravatar image

"[I]f it was determined that we can reasonably expect far more damage economically by not doing anything to slow the pace of climate change than the economic cost of doing something," then the free market should achieve the more efficient outcome just fine. I am assuming, of course, that future damages (and future costs) are properly discounted to their present value, of course. For instance, the present cost of my house being under water 50 years from now, is very minimal.

The role of the government is to recognize property rights and enforce laws which protect them.

(May 01 '14 at 07:41) anthony anthony's gravatar image
showing 2 of 13 show all

For future reference by interested readers, my own response to this question is essentially the same as for a nearly identical question asked by this same questioner several months ago:

I provided some additional links representing the minority/dissenting view in an update to that response, and concluded:

Altogether, what these links show is that the current "Climate Change" activism is not "settled science" at all, and that serious and important dissent exists which needs to be heard. All the talk about allegedly "settled science" is little more than a frantic attempt to silence legitimate dissent and move forward politically in spite of it. That is politics (and philosophy), not science. Science rests on facts, not on headcounts of how many scientists might be pro or con. A single dissenting voice can bring about a major shift in scientific "consensus" if the dissenter has credible evidence and reasoning to back up his dissent, and if scientists and other reasonable people listen.

answered May 03 '14 at 21:11

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦
467718

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×3

Asked: Apr 26 '14 at 18:02

Seen: 495 times

Last updated: May 03 '14 at 21:11