Comments on: A freakonomic view of climate change http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/ Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Weston East http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8819 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:45:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8819 Overlay a chart of sun spot activity from the last 150 years over a chart of climate change. Wow, what a surprise. There’s a direct correlation. This climate hype is no different than the flu hype, the Y2K hype and other contrived panics that are media driven, with every political opportunist jumping on board. Come on people, smarten up and start asking questions of these self-professed experts.

]]>
By: Lee Siu Hoi http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8663 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:38:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8663 Serban,You left out nuclear power. Is that on purpose? As much as I hated it, I have to admit it is still something to consider.Hoi

]]>
By: John http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8657 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:02:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8657 audacity of hope – you say “political diatribe is pointless and polarizing….the facts are irrefutable that climate is changing and that humans can do something about it; “. Please prove that statement. Please only post these “facts” – one at a time if you like and we can go from there. But please do not say “the facts are irrifutable” when probably every single one IS refutable or has already been refuted. Just because you say they are refutable doesn’t mean that is true. Awaiting your post – or others.

]]>
By: James http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8644 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:18:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8644 “Geoengineering solutions”, there we go! What a novel concept, instead of listening to scientist, lawyers, and pol sci majors tell us how to solve a “problem”, lets listen to people who maybe have training and experience in Problem Solving, ummm engineers? what a novel concept! We let engineers solve every other problem facing humanity, but global warming, nope, let the scientist solve it…. If it was a bunch of engineers stepping into the “turf” of scientists, the media reaction would be quite opposite. Thank you scientists the, globe is warming, now please step back and let the “experts” work on it, as you would be saying the same thing if situations were reversed.

]]>
By: audacity of nope http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8637 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:42:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8637 political diatribe is pointless and polarizing….the facts are irrefutable that climate is changing and that humans can do something about it; U.S. doesn’t care as we are not as affected….political posturing by either party is basically delaying change…U.S. chooses to not lead and wastes energy laying blame, which is typical…other countries need to go ahead without us….poor countries need to realize we rely on them remaining poor so we can buy their junk at walmart….we cannot lead…we have too many people trying to score political points….the current periphery will be worse until they emigrate here to the U.S…..we are now semi-periphery imho, not the core as before, if you take a global perspective….of course, govt. will not readily admit this…people in a globalized world do not live in some isolated bubble…but it is sure easier to label “others” and put “others” in a box than collectively do something to benefit all, if we are actually a “democracy” or a leader, like we tell our own people when we are starting wars….., wars now, in case nobody has noticed, are for securing resources…other countries do this in a more tactful fashion, we just use our bloated military….like rome, which destroyed itself stretching too thin to control its’ empire….also immigrants in the future may be coming more for food/water security than anything else…neocons better get to spending our taxpayer dollars building their wall….which will just make us even further behind….as we take our toys and go home….from the rest of the world…ironically, our military bases overseas are still proliferating…..

]]>
By: rico http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8635 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:47:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8635 A few too many assumptions, clueful, but some important points. Your last point is rather questionable — it seems to be the emerging countries leading us out of recession.

]]>
By: Anon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8611 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:37:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8611 Clues for the clueless:1. Scientists have not yet been able to determine a direct causal link between emissions and the changing of current weather conditions.2. Nor have scientists been capable of creating a testable model capable of analysing previous conditions, or predicting future conditions.3. Assuming there is a direct causal link, it is unlikely that the third world is willing to take action and sacrifice their own economic development. Nor does the first world have the money to bankroll the entire planet.4. Assuming the third world agreed to take action on climate change, it is unlikely that the world will be able to set a target of reducing emissions by 50% by 2050.5. Assuming the world reduces its emissions by 50% by 2050, this will only slow global warming down by 50%. It will not reverse any current changes, or prevent any changes in the next couple of decades.6. Assuming that this is the case, the third world will suffer mass starvation. Whether or not we choose to do anything about it, or actually succeed in slowing down climate change.7. Assuming we cut emissions but then fail to reach a new technological breakthrough in green renewable energy, we will be no more screwed then if we decided to do Sweet F%^$ All to combat climate change.8. Assuming we fail to discover the green tech version of the cornucopia, we will inevitably need to turn to nuclear power to fill the gaps once oil becomes more expensive. Not the green future you anticipated, is it?9. As the effects of global warming start to affect the third world, the priority of developed nations will be to prevent those effects from spilling over to better off nations. Or in other words, strict migration control and refugee quotas.10. And there is always the off hand chance that nations will realise that because it is unlikely we will stop or even slow global warming, it is cheaper and more efficient to simply deal with a post-warming world. The third world, most assuredly, will suffer the most.Welcome to the brave new world. The horror will be much worse then mere human extinction. It will be you and your developed nation living in comfort while watching the third world starve.And realising that, yes, you can live with it.

]]>
By: change focus http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8600 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:24:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8600 the immediate costs to do something is less than if we do nothing….regardless if humans caused it or rhino farts, it is pointless drivel to discuss….if we do nothing now, now matter who caused it, or percentage of blame, then future costs will escalate….doofus dubya stuck his dumb head in sand and carbon emissions escalated 31% since kyoto, all because of infantile posturing blaming china…sure did wonders for our economy, though, didnt it??? will do even more by now having to respond to “inevitable” climate change…it is self-fulfilling prophecy…on a global scale….sure am glad stock market is going gang busters…so bailed out bankers using our money have somewhere to park their record bonuses…full speed ahead on the new world order!!!!

]]>
By: common sense http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8584 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:07:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8584 No, the smoker does not need to “do both”, Analogy: a smoker is found to have an early lung cancer. It is pointless to debated whether he should either (a) stop smoking or (b) have the cancer excised. He must do both.He can do both, choose a or choose b. Or keep on going the way he’s going.However, to change the smokers behavior, he must want to change. And no matter how much you use social engineer to force him to change, unless he finds a personal reason to change his ways, which might even be fear of dying, he won’t change.As far as I can tell, Freakonomics alienates people just as much as the social engineering folks. Neither group is effective. Used to be we’d say, “but they sure do sell a lot of newspapers!” Damn I miss newspapers.

]]>
By: God http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/19/a-freakonomic-view-of-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-8579 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:55:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4427#comment-8579 Says to eden been there done that and says to self chuckle I am not incorporated

]]>