Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Devils'Advocate]

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ing#post740262

What bothers me is that we were having the exact same discussion, with some of the same players, 6 years ago and nobody seems to have moved an inch in any direction.

Reading that old thread was interesting. It dawned on me that it has been over 20 years since I started working on global warming issues with various environmental groups. This isn't a new issue. Yet, since environmentalists started the call for action, an almost doubling of our CO2 emissions:
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/w...Global-CO2.png

[troutman]

I think there has been a shift. Less people doubting that global warming is happening at all. More people accepting a human input. The debate is more about the effects and what we can do about it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ing#post740262

What bothers me is that we were having the exact same discussion, with some of the same players, 6 years ago and nobody seems to have moved an inch in any direction.

In fairness, Photon muzzled banned Calgaryborn.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bagor

In fairness, Photon muzzled banned Calgaryborn.

Hey look, another example where despite their gross ignorance someone holds an opinion they're so confident of that they'll blurt it out to others to look more the fool.

You aren't privy to all the mod discussions or actions taken with members, so either don't speak of what you don't know, or if you can't recognize your own ignorance and don't like the way this forum is run and the door is easily accessible.

If there's a joke I'm somehow missing, then I apologize (smiley next time please).

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think there has been a shift. Less people doubting that global warming is happening at all. More people accepting a human input. The debate is more about the effects and what we can do about it.

There may be less, but they are vocal and are enough to cause political confusion. And that's all that is needed.

When it comes right down to it, people in the first world countries have to decide whether they are willing to reduce their standard of living to pay for a change in the way they get their power.

Joe: "I believe that paper is white"
Bill: "According to 99% of scientists who have studied this paper say that it is black"
Joe: "Okay, that seems to be a pretty impressive array of scientists. I might have been hasty in coming to my conclusion."
Bill: "However, believing that it is black means that you have to pay $1,000 per year more"
Joe: "Well, now that you put it that way, those 99% of scientists must have some kind of conspiracy going and are trying to keep quiet that 1% that are telling truth."

Believing that it is probably true is one thing. Being willing to sacrifice for it is a whole different ball game.

The Ontario Liberals are in a tough situation as their decision to go green and reduce greenhouse gas emissions has cost billions upon billions, adding to an already bloated provincial debt, while the cost to consumers is climbing higher, higher and higher. And the voters are already turning away from the party because they claim they cannot afford these costs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle8025566/

When the electricity bill goes up, when taxes go up to bring in green power, that's when belief in global warming goes down.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

There may be less, but they are vocal and are enough to cause political confusion. And that's all that is needed.

When it comes right down to it, people in the first world countries have to decide whether they are willing to reduce their standard of living to pay for a change in the way they get their power.

I think the issue is more that some people aren't willing to take a known tax increase rate for a possible change.

Again, the issue that I keep circling is that people know it exists and that people can contribute to it, but to what level are we contributing? That detail is somewhat sketchy and ill-defined.

The example of using black and white paper isn't a great one. I perceive it as more like this:

Joe: I have to pass by a machine to get to work today.
Bill: This machine shocks you.
Joe: I don't think it does.
Bill: [Lists of big name researchers] think it can.
Joe: Hm...okay. I'll change my mind.
Bill: There's a chance it'll kill you if it shocks you.
Joe: How likely am I to die?
Bill: The researchers can't agree on that. It's somewhere between 5 and 95%.
Joe:
Bill: But there is a solution. It'll cost you $1000/month.

Now, the binary argument you discuss would be where Joe doesn't change his mind. I believe most people are past this part already. Science is having a hard time deciding how much humans will impact the earth (Wikipedia lists a range of 2-5 degrees in 100 years, but is hardly an exhaustive list).

The problem politically is that people look at that and fill it in with whatever they want for the temperature increase. So, am I willing to pay more to avoid a significant change? Yes. That doesn't mean that someone else might read the same values and draw a different conclusion based on the non-uniform data. How much is the subject willing to gamble on the concept that climate change won't be a significant factor? Those who think it's highly likely are willing to increase taxes and cause possible damage economically to some nations prevent it. Those who think it's highly unlikely that we'll see significant damage are willing to keep money in the pockets.

[Devils'Advocate]

True enough.

Although a most reviled man around here, I have read a lot of Suzuki's books and he compares the issue to buying insurance. It could be that, despite all the scientists proclamations, that global warming isn't happening and/or the damage that a few degrees will cause won't be that bad. But maybe it's not worth that risk.

Sometimes people just go without insurance because they don't thing the bad things are ever going to happen. Some people insure against things that are extremely unlikely to happen. So the question Suzuki posed was "What percentage of probability of severe damage from climate change would be enough for you to act? If you were right on the fence - you believe that there is a 50% chance of horrible consequences - would you be willing to act?

Discovery Magazine sums up the consequences here:

Models based on varied temperature increases predict scenarios of devastating floods, drought, wildfires, ocean acidification and eventual collapse of functioning ecosystems worldwide, terrestrial and aquatic alike. Forecasts of famine, war and death paint a dire picture of climate change on our planet. Scientists are researching the causes of these changes the vulnerability of Earth not to predict the end of days but rather to help us mitigate or reduce changes that may be caused by humans. If we know and understand the problems and take action through adaptation, the use of more energy-efficient and sustainable resources and the adoption of other green ways of living, we may be able to make some impact on the climate change process.

If *that* is the impact, and you were 50% convinced that there was a way to avoid this scenario, would you be willing to pay the insurance to avoid the calamity?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by photon

If there's a joke I'm somehow missing, then I apologize (smiley next time please).

Holy crap Photon, it was just a bad effort at a Phil Jones/Mann, muzzle skeptics, climategate joke. Apologies, I thought it was fairly obvious.

Ya know where the whole thing was that they were muzzling anyone that disagreed with them.

Trust me, I never give a second thought to what goes on behind the scenes. It's, well, none of my business.

[photon]

Please accept the apology part then, I'm always a little sensitive when being accused of something I didn't do or if the mod team is accused of being cavalier about some bannings.

[Tinordi]

Global warming is simple.

[JeanLucPicard]

Well, time for Field Hockey then.

[Tinordi]