Dank n Edgy

The dorkest, edgist forums known to puny hoomans

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to DnE, the online psych facility. (Run by the inmates, for the inmates.)

#1 2016-02-08 23:07:19

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Australia dumps climate program

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … tist-jobs/


Murika v2 except we didn't fucking dump our programs


Fucc

Offline

#2 2016-02-09 01:39:26

TheWake
Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: Australia dumps climate program

good


The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

WsEkePS.png

Offline

#3 2016-02-09 11:26:51

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

Fuk off Wes reason.com isn't a fucking climate science program and economists aren't climate scientists


Fucc

Offline

#4 2016-02-09 19:30:51

RammsteinFearFactory
A new era has begun.
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 2,558

Re: Australia dumps climate program

absentinsomniac wrote:

Fuk off Wes reason.com isn't a fucking climate science program and economists aren't climate scientists

We need to get durnk on suhit haaaaah

being anaemic is weird I don't even feel lucid very often anymore

my brain is a potato


a.

Offline

#5 2016-02-09 20:28:46

V.R.
receive {_, _} -> void.
Registered: 2013-04-02
Posts: 5,352

Re: Australia dumps climate program

Global warming is a fraud designed to raise our taxes.

Last edited by V.R. (2016-02-09 20:28:53)


"Humanity Is Overrated" - Shrek

Offline

#6 2016-02-09 21:24:31

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

Rheeeeee


Fucc

Offline

#7 2016-02-10 00:20:37

TheWake
Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: Australia dumps climate program

absentinsomniac wrote:

Fuk off Wes reason.com isn't a fucking climate science program and economists aren't climate scientists

Economists can take the projections made by climate scientists and do cost-benefit analysis of the situation. What's the cost of one unit of climate abatement vs. the benefit? Etc. And compare this to a situation where humanity adjusts to climate change instead of mitigating it. Is that cheaper? Maybe a combination of the two situations is preferable?


The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

WsEkePS.png

Offline

#8 2016-02-10 00:45:35

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

You have to use sequential analysis how do you do that without fucking active climate programs? The analysis doesn't work without data.


Your shitty cost benefit analysis isn't going to be accurate and they probably use pretty fucking conservative estimates to start with. And while they're at it, they'll call them "liberal". It's questionable as to weather it's accurate even in the short term imo. Especially if it's done by folks who discount differences in regional ability to deal with problems. How do you think Africa is going to cope?


Fucc

Offline

#9 2016-02-10 02:10:33

TheWake
Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: Australia dumps climate program

You're right that cost-benefit is an imperfect art. So what we're dealing with are costs from climate change abatement that can be more easily predicted in some sense (although not necessarily the opportunity cost of climate change abatement, which is uncertain) and costs from climate change itself that are uncertain depending on what actually happens to the climate. So we're going on uncertain data. And of course we're talking about doing something now which is supposed to bring some sort of benefit on down the line, and we tend to value things now rather than later. So we discount the damage possible from climate change (and of course the discounting used is an issue in and of itself in the cost-benefit analysis), but we will in the present feel the up-front costs of climate change abatement.

Also, we're looking at Earth, where there are approximately 195 or so countries and there's little chance we can have worldwide enforcement of climate change abatement policies. People will, in the long run, move production to places with less stringent greenhouse gas regulations, no regulations, or places they can get exemptions (and let's not forget capital is more mobile than labor). So, we're hurting our economy doubly even though we're not changing the increase of worldwide emissions enough to stop the trajectory of climate change, which is a problem caused by global emissions.

And you want to talk about Africa? Here's a continent where populations are growing. The future Earth will look a lot more African than it does right now. These people will hopefully see their economies grow in terms of per capita output, see rising living standards. This will produce more greenhouse gasses. What do we do about that?

Seems like a pretty wicked problem to solve in the current world. Seems like a lot of tinkering with the economy which we know can hurt the lives of real people, to abate climate change which we don't necessarily know exactly how it will impact these very same people.

I'm not arguing that it could have a real consequence of being damaging (how damaging, we obviously don't know). I'm not arguing that it's manmade. I'll take all those as a given. But abatement policies governments implement are also damaging too, to economic growth, to real people. I guess it partially depends on how risk averse to an anticipated amount of potential climate change you are as to what policies you want in place.


The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

WsEkePS.png

Offline

#10 2016-02-10 04:46:21

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

I think it's better to think ahead, one of the problems with the corporate model is being addressed through policy. E.g. lack of long term planning, at least for non-huge corporations. The ideal isn't to make as much money as soon as possible, it's to prevent leaving future generations an unsolvable ecological problem which very well could ruin economic stability for entire regions and populations.


Capital flight seems like a theoretical outcome that has yet to come to fruition for climate policies, afaik. The solution to this problem, assuming it's not a minor issue (which would be hard to prove one way or another) is multilateral policy agreements and pressure. That's what everyone has been pushing for. There's been widespread industry sponsored research that's the equivalence of apocalyptic global warming scenarios, except they are of the opposite persuasion... They claim apocalyptic economic scenarios where modern economies will slow down and take a huge hit due to environmental policy. I've seen basically no legit evidence for this. Most of the policy analysis by the E.P.A. as well as their peer reviewed modeling suggests there are many cost effective ways of reducing C02. Most policy is enacted in a phase-in and is pretty targeted and carefully implemented. A lot of these account for international offsets and what not, and even without considering economic benefits from these policies, they're still not that harmful to the economy, if they are at all.



And you want to talk about Africa? Here's a continent where populations are growing. The future Earth will look a lot more African than it does right now. These people will hopefully see their economies grow in terms of per capita output, see rising living standards. This will produce more greenhouse gasses. What do we do about that?

The same damn thing we do with everyone else.


Seems like a pretty wicked problem to solve in the current world. Seems like a lot of tinkering with the economy which we know can hurt the lives of real people, to abate climate change which we don't necessarily know exactly how it will impact these very same people.

We know a hell of a lot more than you want to let on. It's an incredibly heavily studied area.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/


Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da … es-of.html

Impacts of climate change will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the present, they are very likely to impose net annual costs which will increase over time as global temperatures increase.


The large ranges of SCC are due in the large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses, and discount rates. It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time [T20.3, 20.6, F20.4].


It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. In some locations and among some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global aggregate [20.6, 20.ES, 7.4].


I think it's not sensible to discount the increasingly damaging effects that seem likely to compound and increase over time.

I'm not arguing that it could have a real consequence of being damaging (how damaging, we obviously don't know). I'm not arguing that it's manmade. I'll take all those as a given. But abatement policies governments implement are also damaging too, to economic growth, to real people. I guess it partially depends on how risk averse to an anticipated amount of potential climate change you are as to what policies you want in place.


Being fast and lose with global environmental health is a terrible idea imho


I think if we're talking sensibly without shock statements though, you'd agree that given any conceivable outcome, you can't even create economic models without accurate data. Australia just fucking got rid of a good portion of our data. Even assuming we don't know that much about the probable affects, which I think we know more than you're letting on, then it makes even less sense to cut the fucking monitoring program. Now if, at some point, they were to have shown conclusive proof that serious damage beyond our predictions were to occur, well they're fucked... You can't fucking adapt to shit without knowing what the fuck you're going to adapt to. Incredibly retarded move on their part no matter what side of the fence you're on in terms of probable future damage. Because we can't know for sure. And it's not like it's fucking 1 in a million, here, either. It's not like they're monitoring for aliens. Fuck.  There's a very good chance (probable) that taking action now is the best long term move possible. Given that, even if it were just a 20 percent chancee, keeping an eye on it via programs like CSIRO used to be is a must. It'd be like if there were a 20 percent chance of a fucking asteroid hitting earth we'd want to fucking keep an eye on near earth objects and orbits and changes. (And we do.) And keep in mind that Australia is likely to be very heavily affected.


Fucc

Offline

#11 2016-02-10 05:20:33

TheWake
Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: Australia dumps climate program

I guess we'll fucking see what fucking happens when we're fucking 80.


The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

WsEkePS.png

Offline

#12 2016-02-10 05:22:54

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

I guess so


depositphotos_1351777-Young-male-with-arms-crossed.jpg


Fucc

Offline

#13 2016-02-10 21:49:59

TheWake
Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: Australia dumps climate program

>uses a stock photo with watermarks

I've clearly won this


The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

WsEkePS.png

Offline

#14 2016-02-10 23:21:24

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

That's the joke bucko


Fucc

Offline

#15 2016-02-11 00:11:35

loon_attic
Banned
Registered: 2012-06-08
Posts: 10,263

Re: Australia dumps climate program

Holy shit, I can post stock photos with watermarks too

SB7DV89.png

ha ha get it

"dumps" climate program


sloth wrote:

Comfy does not provide challenge, challenge provides success, success provides happiness. Our world is not comfy, although we tried to make it so. Slaves of our own inventions, yada, yada. Not only on a technological level, also on a social and political level. Nothing more but apes. Apes with psychosomatic disorders.

Offline

#16 2016-02-11 00:17:22

absentinsomniac
Administrator
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,757

Re: Australia dumps climate program

sheit


Fucc

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB