The Case For Climate Change 2

(The second in a series of posts, the first can be found Here)

Once: we’ve established that scientific data, pointing to the fact that the earth is in fact warming, exists, and that many respectable people, institutions, governments and individuals have both seen it, documented it, researched it, analyzed it and deducted from it.

And: regardless at this point of weather or not you accept that Humans play a role in these changes.

There ARE in fact climate changes. And what is important to realize now is that these changes play a dual role:

(1) On one hand, they are caused by _____ (we’ll fight about that when Fox News presents their arguments in the 4th post) => and are therefore an EFFECT.

(2) On the other hand, they are, within themselves A CAUSE of ____ –> Exactly what this post will deal with:

The effects of global warming/ climate change/ temperature rises (whatever your congressman or news anchor wants you to call it) on us, the citizens of the world.

Main Primary Effects of Global Warming:

  • Rising Sea Levels
  • More severe storms, droughts, floods
  • Changed migration patterns of various species (including humans!)

Links: NatGeo, GlobWarm, LiveSci

Main Secondary Effects of Global Warming:

  • Health: Spread of diseases such as Malaria and increase in cardiovascular and respiratory related incidents
  • Politics: Shifting of borders between countries, migration
  • Economics: increasing costs

Links: CAP, TimeMag, MedIndia, EnvGraf, CTV-News

Since we have accepted that there is a rise in temperature, from there, the deduction of the primary and then of the secondary effects of global warming are mainly logic-based and the scientific data can be found in all of the articles I’ve linked here (and in the previous post).

From acknowledging these effects, one can then reach the logical conclusion that increased pathological incidences in health, increased destruction of populated areas and of tourist-oriented areas, all can be summed up into increased spending and decreased earning.

So, the earth is warming, and it will cause these events, but- where do we begin to fix it? And, more importantly- whose gonna pay for the fixing?

You know what you greedy readers? I know that no matter how much I go on about HOW and WHAT to fix, you’re gonna keep thinking about WHOSE GONNA PAY. So, whadya say we jump right into that one first?

You. and me. All of us are going to pay. Money makes the world go round. More specifically- our money goes into other people’s pockets and they make the world go round.

Should we increase taxes to cover global warming prevention and, slowing and solving costs? if you ask me the answer is no. Take it from the defense budget. From the homeland and internal security budget. From the ministry of foreign affairs budget. From the “pay-off wall-street” budget. Now, do I think that a president that just sent 150,000  ADDITIONAL soldiers to Afghanistan will do that? No. But just because our leaders insist on spending all of our money to make their jobs more exciting, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be paying to deal with a problem that actually exists. And just because our leaders are BFFs with the people and organizations causing the most damage, doesn’t mean we should pay with our health or money for the increasing health spending and for buying the Saudi Prince Pop-tarts when he comes to visit cause those are his favorite bedtime treat, and all because we rely on him for oil.

Who else should pay? Industries that are directly involved. Obviously- General Motors, Microsoft and George W. Bush have a larger Carbon Footprint than I do, so they should pay more (they also just plain have a lot more money than me and should pay more, but I guess that’s a whole different box of Wheaties!)

STOP! I know what some of you wise-asses are saying to yourselves (while checking that no random penny has suddenly vanished from your wallet just from reading this), you’re saying: “ok, there will be costs, and we will pay, but if we can’t calculate EXACTLY how much, how do we know if we’re not going to spend too much on this carbon bullshit? How can I know that by giving 3 pennies I’m not losing 1.04 pennies because it will one day turn out that I could have given 1.96 pennies and gotten the same result?”

Point taken corrupt readers. Money matters to you. Every penny. Forget that your govt. is currently spending all of your money on blowing up people halfway around the world for no reason, you’re not willing to lose a penny to the environment unless it saves you from losing 2 pennies tomorrow.

This can be answered on 3 levels:

(1) You are corrupt morons that seem to think you’re so smart by yelling about public spending when it comes to the environment, but when it comes to yelling about public spending about, hmmmm lets see, basically ANYTHING else, including your govt. sacrificing your lives for anything that comes to their mind, THAT you’re quiet about.

(2) Transitioning to “Green(er) Energy”: investing in this transition is in our interest REGARDLESS of exactly how much money it takes to slow down global warming, because (video) (a) its in the political interest of many-a-country today to reduce their dependence on the unstable, inhumane, violent regimes that are in charge of a majority of the world’s energy sources and (b) its in our interest as citizens because in the long-run it decreases our energy expenses and is healthier.

Hold on! What is this green energy everyone is talking about?! It’s everywhere! This (several short videos) is what we mean when we say Green Energy. Or, if you’re the wiki-type, this. And, if that wasn’t enough, they list the benefits.

(3) You’re right. No one will be able to give us an exact number. And we should make sure that our governments don’t just use this as another excuse to rip us off. But hey, we’ve accepted changes are happening, we’ve accepted they will cause events that will require larger future spending- obviously SOME amount of money, an amount that can lead to a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE and not just a symbolic (“look, I’m helping”) good-will donation, is necessary.

Remember there were 2 questions?

(1) Whose gonna pay (Check!).

(2) How do we fix it? (and we’ve even already trotted a bit into that territory with the green energy point).

Next post we’ll go double-007 on our own little (or big) asses and talk about practical solutions, to what we now all agree is a practical problem, and not the practical joke Fox News seems to think it is.


16 Responses to The Case For Climate Change 2

  1. anti-Israel says:

    There is only one practical solution. Not 5. Not 20. Not 108. The whole thing is almost diabolically simple. We are over-focusing on climate change. It’s not the central problem.

  2. rogerthesurf says:

    Here is how we will pay for the IPCC required CO2 emissions and wealth transfers.

    As AGW is baloney it is difficult to say that we will be paying for that, but even if you do believe in AGW we will still pay.

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



    If you want some evidence for the baloney bit check my blog at

    • Tahel Ilan says:

      “AGW is baloney” so you accept there’s a climate change but u claim we shouldn’t deal with the issue
      (1) because it isn’t man made- i haven’t actually argued this point yet and all the arguments ive made so far are legit regardless of the cause of GW…
      (2) because we would actually lose money:
      (a) “In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies”- this is an assumption, and here are some links to organizations that contradict it:
      (b) “to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc”
      that was a very selective list (all of chemicals)- that doesn’t cover even 50% of the emission reduction public discourse happening today: (for starters)
      (c) “we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.” who says this can be expected? and what data are they basing that prediction on?
      (d) “All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.” funny, i just used that sentence to describe the effects of GW… as scientific data and analysis has shown… u used it as if you were writing the screenplay for “apocalypse now2”
      (e) “Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature” that wasnt the point of the IPCC, that’s the job of the govt. and economists- here’s the complete analysis:

      in all that talk about money, you have conveniently forgotten to mention how you plan to pay for your increasing medical bills in the next 50 years and how you are planning to protect yourself from the increasing risk of subtracting malaria, asthma and heart disease.
      its smart not to believe everything you’re told, but if you still believe that lee harvey oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, I give up.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Tahel Ilan,
        Thank you for your reply,

        “in all that talk about money, you have conveniently forgotten to mention how you plan to pay for your increasing medical bills in the next 50 years and how you are planning to protect yourself from the increasing risk of subtracting malaria, asthma and heart disease.”
        This is the medical student speaking, my reply as an economist is that if the scenario (which is based on standard economic principles) is that most of us normal people simply will not be doing these things at all because we will be more concerned as to where our next meal will be coming from.

        Of course there are other gases which the IPCC wishes to restrict emissions of, I have just used oil and related products and CO2 as an example.

        If you were studying economics you would know that the supply of energy is, in economist terms, very inelastic. This means that a small decrease in supply will cause a disproportionate in crease in the market price.
        Considering the amout of emissions we are expected to reduce in a short time, 500% is very very conservative estimate.

        There is some doubt that wind energy is feasible in the short run, and both wind and solar power will always be unreliable because the wind does not blow all the time and neither does the sun shine all the time.
        Practically they can only be supplements for hydro power however which has limited expansion potential in most countries.
        Nuclear energy has some potential, but that appears to be even more unpopular.

        Attempting to conserve fossil fuels with electric or hydrogen cell powered cars will simply move the CO2 emissions from the exhaust pipe to the smoke stack.

        Biofuel competes already with the food supply.

        There is no alternative fuel program that I know of that survives without taxpayer intervention. This is another method by which fuel prices are and will continue to increase, through our taxes.

        Yes there is a real chance of a severe economic crash if the IPCC has its way. What I am saying is, if AGW turns out to be baloney, as I believe it is, (you should read my blog), it would be kinda stupid to endure an apocalypse as I describe for no good reason, do you not agree?
        So what I am saying is that we need a good robust and high standard of proof for AGW before we commit ourselves to paying such a terrible price.



      • anti-Israel says:

        oh yeah sure. And you are WHO again??? Oh right. A fucking nameless loser with no credentials and zero idea what he’s talking about who posts such nonsense and crap as Fred Singer’s anti-global warming “petition” a few ages ago as a ludicrous hoax.

        We’re REALLY going to accept YOUR word over the scientific community’s. Right. And I’m Reinhold Messner.

        Go shove your head in a toilet.

  3. anti-israel says:

    Another fucking kook.

  4. anti-israel says:

    You shouldn’t given these vermin any attention, Tahel. It only convinced them they have something to say.

  5. Tahel Ilan says:

    “we will be more concerned as to where our next meal will be coming from” – this is an article from 3 days ago, partially the result of GW shifting crop growing all over the world- food prices are being hit today, its not a future scenario for what will happen if we waste money on GW, its the present scenario for what’s happening when we dont:

    while i appreciate the economic view point on everything, in my points i pointed out taxes will probably be raised, that’s not an idea i argue with.

    Roger, you can’t have it all- you can’t tell me that your an economist and that therefore I should accept your economic points (though i could find many economists to counter them if i wished to) and simultaneously try to counter the science and technology parts, based on nothing substantial, while i have supplied many different sources, funded by different people with different interests, all respected, that have come up with the same data and same big-picture-analysis of it.

    While economics are important, there is sometimes, I feel, a complete disconnect between them and reality, in the sense that you are like monkeys- you are taught that economics are all about profit, you look for the extra penny made, and you are blind to anything that is not on the course to the extra penny made. most life saving drugs out there today, wouldn’t have been researched and marketed if the people involved in the early steps were in it for the big bucks.
    Thinking only about economic profit is realistic up until the point where it isnt. On things like health care, for example, its worth losing the money- or investing it, in my opinion.
    It’s your prerogative to vote republican, watch fox news and live your life believing that anything with the word ‘green’ in it is a hoax.
    In my opinion such people are ignorant, but more than that, they are arrogant and selfish. Millions of people in Africa and Asia are already today suffering the effects of GW. I realize you don’t see a profit to make there so you use the George Bush method of ignoring science.
    The only difference is that mr. bush is no longer pres so its not his problem, you’re still on planet earth so it is urs.
    and btw- as soon as bush was out of the white house and ddnt have to raise taxes to get something done and have everyone mad at him–>he went completely green 😀
    and he even went green while he was still pres, just short enough before it ended:,8599,1581789,00.html

    • anti-Israel says:

      Honestly–they’re like Israelis! (No offense meant.) The climate change deniers just blanket the net and the airwaves with 24/7 lies and stupidity.

      And of course, it works.

  6. rogerthesurf says:

    Tahel Ilan

    All I am doing is offering you a logical economic analysis. It is simple enough to follow.
    It has nothing to do with profit, it is about the effect on normal people if the IPCC has its way.

    We are all aware that the proof of AGW has its problems, and what I am saying is that we should demand a somewhat more robust proof before we starve our families.

    I imagine in medicine you study statistics. Therefore you must know what a correlation is. Furthermore I hope you remember that although a correlation is a neccesary condition needed to establish a relationship, a correlation is not proof of anything.

    Do YOU know of any evidence for AGW that is better than a correlation?

    Would you starve your family because of a theory that has no scientific proof?

    Thats what I am saying. I think that is quite a reasonable question.



    PS Oh you could also read my blog at

    • anti-israel says:

      Bleed to death.

    • Tahel Ilan says:

      you keep referring to AGW, I’m talking about GW.
      and I would argue that whether or not man-induced-climate-change is a hoax or not, global warming is a situation that has proven to be problematic already today, and if the only way we can curb it is by changing what we, humans do, since we obviously can’t ask the oceans to behave differently, then that’s what we need to do.
      hurricanes happen. floods happen. the damage they cause is extensive. if the weather behaved differently they wouldnt happen, but i cant ask the atmosphere to change. if there’s something i can do to decrease the severity of those things, im willing to pay the price- of course to an extent.

  7. […] the reasons it’s controversial aren’t necessarily good ones: 1st Post in the series, 2nd. More to […]

  8. rogerthesurf says:

    If you are talking about global warming as opposed to Anthropogenic Global warming, then we are talking about two different things.
    The point being, if it is naturally induced global warming, (and I believe it is), then there is nothing we can do to change that and therefore we will need to learn to live with it.
    If this is the case, the whole discussion about fossil fuels and CO2 emissions becomes irrelevant.

    Sorry to waste your time.



  9. […] The Case For Climate Change 3 (Last) (The third and LAST in a series of posts, the first can be found Here, the second Here) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: