Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[♪alt13]

Expecting corporations to do the right thing when no profit is involved is definitely the way to have major issues with the environment and economy. Corporations are driven by profit and thus have a conflict of interest on when it comes to doing the right thing. Now there are some corporations who try and are concerned about the earth and economy but on a larger scale most corporations are married to their stockholders.

It wasn't always this way. A corporation is nothing more than a legal framework. The history of the American Corporation is actually more interesting than it sounds. People say corporations are married to their stockholders and motivated only by profit as if they must be. We can change the corporate structure. Hell we can change the entire economic paradigm if we so chose.

 

[franklin]

Is is your globe warming a good pickup lie?

 

[LogGrad98]

Is is your globe warming a good pickup lie?

You had me at globe.

 

[♪alt13]

Is is your globe warming a good pickup lie?

Are there any good pickup lines?

 

[8]

Are there any good pickup lines?

Flashing multiple hundreds works pretty well tbh

 

[♪alt13]

Flashing multiple hundreds works pretty well tbh

meh

rufies are cheaper

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Yes, they can measure how much ice melts, the volume of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, the rise of the global temperature. But what does this mean? These numbers could get larger and have no effect on my life, or they could lead to world-ending disaster. The long-term effects cannot be seen, while the long-term effects of government policy can be seen.

I disagree vehemently that the LT effects of government policy can be seen, at least in this context, better (or at all) than science-based predictions of the effects of warming & rising seas, melting polar ice and glaciers, etc.

It also seems to me that the hue and cry of the destructive effects of progressive economic/environmental regulation is almost inevitably overstated. If global warming is serious problem (and it seems to be, deniers notwithstanding), then the odds of the private sector acting unilaterally to take action to address it are slim and none. There will have to be additional regulations implemented, which will be resisted to the bitter end by business and their allies in government accompanied by no end of horror stories of economic ruin if they do pass. And when they do pass, businesses will adjust, and life, and economic prosperity, will go on as it has after every other economic/environmental regulation has been passed, despite warnings of economic apocalypse should it pass (and that has yet to occur).

 

[8]

I disagree vehemently that the LT effects of government policy can be seen, at least in this context, better (or at all) than science-based predictions of the effects of warming & rising seas, melting polar ice and glaciers, etc.

It also seems to me that the hue and cry of the destructive effects of progressive economic/environmental regulation is almost inevitably overstated. If global warming is serious problem (and it seems to be, deniers notwithstanding), then the odds of the private sector acting unilaterally to take action to address it are slim and none. There will have to be additional regulations implemented, which will be resisted to the bitter end by business and their allies in government accompanied by no end of horror stories of economic ruin if they do pass. And when they do pass, businesses will adjust, and life, and economic prosperity, will go on as it has after every other economic/environmental regulation has been passed, despite warnings of economic apocalypse should it pass (and that has yet to occur).

We will disagree then. For me, personally, it is much easier to see the effects of policy. Difference in educations I'd assume. I've studied a ton of econ and very little on environmental issues. Probably why.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

We will disagree then. For me, personally, it is much easier to see the effects of policy. Difference in educations I'd assume. I've studied a ton of econ and very little on environmental issues. Probably why.

It seems to me that if you have studied lots of econ, you'd realize that econ projections are inherently very tenuous, given that even the most sophisticated projections cannot account for all the random noise or the complexity of the systems that we are trying to effect. (These complex systems, moreover, are highly dynamic and respond to changes in quite unpredictable ways at times.)

By the way, I too have extensive background in econ and little in environmental issues, but I've seen enough to have much higher confidence that natural scientists can explain/predict changes in natural systems better than social scientists can explain/predict changes political/economic/and social systems.

 

[8]

It seems to me that if you have studied lots of enviornmental issues, you'd realize that climatic/envioronmental projections are inherently very tenuous, given that even the most sophisticated projections cannot account for all the random noise or the complexity of the systems that we are trying to effect. (These complex systems, moreover, are dynamic and respond to changes in unpredictable ways at times.)

can do that too

I'll try and explain again. I'm simply saying that for me, personally (which means I'm pretty sure I'm right), I can see and realize the effects of a tarriff, minimum wage mandate, etc. better than I can see the effects of spraying an aerosol can up at the ozone layer.

I realize what you are saying, but suggesting to me that I am incorrect about myself is kinda nonsense

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

can do that too

I'll try and explain again. I'm simply saying that for me, personally (which means I'm pretty sure I'm right), I can see and realize the effects of a tarriff, minimum wage mandate, etc. better than I can see the effects of spraying an aerosol can up at the ozone layer.

I realize what you are saying, but suggesting to me that I am incorrect about myself is kinda nonsense

I'm not suggesting you are incorrect about yourself (which would be nonsense), but I am suggesting that perhaps (what I interpret to be) your confidence in the ability of economic models to predict economic outcomes is a bit misplaced.

The effects of tariffs and minimum wage legislation have clear theoretical implications, but in practice, given all the noise and the ability of complex systems to adapt to 'perturbations', what effect they have in practice doesn't always square with the theory (simply put, ceteris paribus is a useful tool for theorizing, but vastly oversimplifies cause and effect relationships in highly complex systems).

In any case, I get where you're coming from. Sorry for any implied offense.

 

[8]

I'm not suggesting you are incorrect about yourself (which would be nonsense), but I am suggesting that perhaps (what I interpret to be) your confidence in the ability of economic models to predict economic outcomes is a bit misplaced.

The effects of tariffs and minimum wage legislation have clear theoretical implications, but in practice, given all the noise and the ability of complex systems to adapt to 'perturbations', what effect they have in practice doesn't always square with the theory (simply put, ceteris paribus is a useful tool for theorizing, but vastly oversimplifies cause and effect relationships in highly complex systems).

In any case, I get where you're coming from. Sorry for any implied offense.

I agree. However, I have no confidence in economic models and envioranmental models. So it is not misplaced, but nonexistent.