No.

That's the point, the amount of water in the atmosphere varies greatly, due to precipitation and evaporation. It varies by an amount many time greater than the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If H2O and CO2 are similar in their capacity as greenhouse gases, how is a doubling, or even tripling of CO2 going to have a significant effect on the climate, when the amount of H2O already continually varies by an amount many times more than this?

The variation in the water cycle is well known, it's covered by the science of meteorology. The role played by both water and CO2 in historical climate, such as glaciation and hot periods is scientifically understood. It's true that some of the triggers of glaciation are not known, but once a change is underway, it is fairly well understood.

In other words, CO2 is the constant, and H2O is the variable. The effects of the variable are far more substantial to the subject at hand, than the effects of the constant. How does any credible science treat the variable as a constant, thereby allowing the constant to be treated as a variable?

Yes, the CO2 is constant in its increase. It can't vary due to a lack of precipitation etc.. There are for the water cycle longer frequency variations, such as long periods of sea level and glaciation change.like I say, currently sea levels are rising. I wonder why?

I confess to finding this thread depressing. Even if the science might be wrong (MU), the majority of scientists think they've got it right, and it seems to me wisest to take the precautionary view rather than the optimistic one instead of endlessly re-debating the science. Even if there are positives to climate change (Tom, Question, others), there are many negatives, and it would surely be wise to address them: the point of policy debate is mostly to mitigate problems, not to celebrate good news.

Some of this stuff seems like clever-sounding argument for the sake of argument. The question for policy-makers is, in our locality, or in concert with others in other localities, what would the wise thing to do be?

The problems of increased flooding, for example, aren't going to go away and aren't going to be addressed by the kindest of entrepreneurs as part of the market system, unless their factory is going under. Investment in changed infrastructure is required, which will have to be funded by taxation or charity. My own locality has been badly hit by repeated flooding in recent years; and on a global scale, countries like Bangladesh and major cities worldwide face likely devastation unless we prepare for worst case scenarios, having revised downwards the criteria for worst-case scenarios (where I live we've had once-in-100-years floods, by criteria proposed in 2000, five times since 2000). In some cases there are no reasonable preventative measures and we just have to work out how to be resilient, but even that costs public money: rehousing, refitting housing, and so forth.

Damn! All I've watched was Foxnews. — Hanover

No, no Hanover. Don't put yourself down. What you need is an in-house Climate Wonk. Get rid of the lawn and pool boys--also the housekeeper, you can't afford it all--and hire an in-house wonk who can supply you with every comfort that statistics and charts can offer. You'll probably want to request a curvaceous, sultry wonkess from Brandeis University who can fluff up your pillow and sit by your bed and read you lewd and lascivious nighttime tales from the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force as well as boil a kosher egg for your breakfast. (Personal services are charged separately.)

You can continue to watch Fox News and still be well informed.

Yes, I was finding it depressing too, I suppose I feel solace in the idea that we are, on the whole, accepting that there is a problem and starting to make some efforts in tackling it.

Regarding the issue of flooding, we can deal with it fairly easily, it just needs some joined up thinking and cooperation. Once the upper catchments have been restored to their natural state of scrub and forest, with perhaps a few beavers, along with natural overspill reservoirs and sinks. Rather than the rule of the grouse moors. The flash floods through the towns would be much less intense. In some cases like Lynmouth and Boscastle concrete flood channels might be required through the town. Quite simple really, well apart from the red tape and backward thinking landowners and politicians. Are you aware of the work of George Mombiot? He has some exciting ideas about re-wilding and reform of EU agricultural subsidies (which are aimed at preserving the current countryside ecosystems in aspic).

More concerning is the imminent collapse of ecosystems and the mass extinction event we are witness to. Far more difficult to address, and once lost, if not irretreavable, will take millennia (rather than a couple of generations to destroy) of hard work to restore. The Millennium Seed Bank and an increased network of Zoos will help. But will only be able to save a portion of species. We can theoretically cope with a small increase in temperature of up to say 3 degrees Celsius. Although this would be a gargantuan struggle with much suffering due to the size of our populations, provided we don't descend into civil wars. But we could theoretically ride out the storm with civilisation intact.

The bigger worry though is a runaway climate change scenario in which we become encased in a shroud of cloud, rather like Venus. Which would be disastrous for humanity, we would survive, but the majority would die and the few survivors would be right back in the Stone Age for millennia and would have lost all our hard won knowledge and technology. Something which I suspect has happened numerous times to humanity in the past( well not the same level of technology though). This last possibility is what we should be concerned with and I'm sure the scientific community is on board. We just have to keep our fingers crossed now that the politicians don't turn in the direction of denial, or mess it up. Industry and the corporate world are on board, but tend to be self-interest focussed.

My point here is that it is rational and not at all arbitrary to reject the conclusions of someone you find lacking credibility. What would be irrational would be to fully accept the credibility of the scientists but to simply refuse to accept their inconvenient conclusions. I don't think that is at all what is happening. I think what is really happening is that the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid. If tomorrow they report they were wrong, I suspect you'd change your mind. Whether placing trust in the consensus of the experts is reasonable and rational is debatable because polling scientists is a not a scientific act. It's a political one. — Hanover

It isn't rational because it's a logical fallacy to reject an argument based on the perceived authority of those making its case - especially on something as flimsy as political affiliation. Moreover, the consensus is over 97%. What happened to those 40% Republican scientists? Third, it's not just US scientists that say this so the political affiliation discussion only goes so far and really is only a US discussion.

Do you think the Netherlands, where if water levels rise, is happy with conclusions that mean 40% of our land-mass, where over 60% of the people live, will disappear? We'd rather not have to spend trillions of euros on having to ensure the safety of our country and there's a big incentive therefore to get it right before spending that money, regardless of your political leanings. The consensus here is close to, if not exactly, 100% with respect to climate change and the dangers it creates with respect to rising sea levels, increased rain and river discharges. So for us, there are no benefits. It's nice though that there's a few more trees and less deaths from cold winters.

How about those areas in the US where scientists have a particular personal incentive to get it right, such as NY? What's the consensus then?

I think you were missing my point here. If everything is commonly owned, there's nobody to pursue their particular self-interest at the expense of a common resource because he does not have the power and authority to make that decision. Communism would solve the problem as well - theoretically speaking and aside from the other issues that arise from common ownership.

So, I just read this article here and have had a discussion with a friend who's pretty conservative.

Maybe I'm missing something; but, what are your thoughts about climate change? Please skim the article, thanks. — Question

BTW, the IPCC report does go into some of these benefits which seem to be there to some extent (but not much research available) but the benefits quickly deteriorate with an increase in temperature above 1 or 2 degrees celsius (depending on the type of crop or trees).

For instance:

A second reason for concern is the distribution of impacts among people and across regions. The impacts of climate change will not be distributed equally. Some individuals, sectors, systems, and regions will be less affected—or may even benefit; other individuals, sectors, systems, and regions may suffer significant losses. This pattern of relative benefits or losses is not likely to remain constant over time. It will be different with different magnitudes of climate change. Some regions may have gains only for certain changes in temperature and precipitation and not for others. As a result, some regions that may first see net benefits eventually may face losses as well as the climate continues to warm. — IPCC

and

It has not been assumed that all the impacts of climate change will be detrimental. Indeed, several studies have looked at possible benefits. Moreover, adaptation is a means of maximizing such gains as well as minimizing potential losses.
However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding. Examples that have not been fully documented include the possible spread of tropical and subtropical horticulture further poleward (but see some New Zealand studies, on kiwi fruit, for example—Salinger and Kenny, 1995; Hall and McPherson, 1997b). In southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, notably Tasmania, there could be gains for the wine industry, increased comfort indices and thus tourism, and in some scenarios increased water for hydroelectric power generation.
Guest et al. (1999) have documented possible decreases in winter human mortality alongside possible increased summer mortality (see Section 12.7.1), and Howden et al. (1999d) have shown that Australian wheat yields may increase for 1 or 2°C warming, before showing declines at greater warmings (see Section 12.5.3 and Figure 12-3). A similar situation may apply to forestry (see Section 12.5.4). Such studies take account of gains from increased CO2 concentrations. Changes in overseas production and thus in markets in some cases also could lead to greater demand and higher prices for Australian and New Zealand primary products (see Section 12.5.9), but only if such changes do not disrupt world trade in other ways (e.g., lower capacity to pay).
Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change must be considered in the context of the entire ecological and socioeconomic environment in which they will take place. Indeed, adaptations will be viable only if they have net social and economic benefits and are taken up by stakeholders. Adaptations should take account of any negative side effects, which would not only detract from their purpose but might lead to opposition to their implementation (PMSEIC, 1999).
Adaptation is the primary means for maximizing gains and minimizing losses. This is why it is important to include adaptation in impact and vulnerability studies, as well as in policy options. As discussed in Chapter 18, adaptation is necessary to help cope with inevitable climate change, but it has limits; therefore, it would be unwise to rely solely on adaptation to solve the climate change problem.
In some cases adaptation may have co-benefits. For example, reforestation to lower water tables and dryland salinization or to reduce storm runoff may provide additional income and help with mitigation (reduction of GHG emissions). However, other potential adaptations may be unattractive for other reasons (e.g., increased setbacks of development in coastal and riverine environments). These considerations have particular application in Australia and New Zealand. Studies of adaptation to climate change in Australia and New Zealand are still relatively few and far between. They are summarized in the remainder of this section. — IPCC

So in fact, they specifically avoid confirmation bias by allowing for benefits even though the research for that is rather sporadic so far.

It isn't rational because it's a logical fallacy to reject an argument based on the perceived authority of those making its case - especially on something as flimsy as political affiliation. Moreover, the consensus is over 97%. What happened to those 40% Republican scientists? Third, it's not just US scientists that say this so the political affiliation discussion only goes so far and really is only a US discussion. — Benkei

Credibility of the person is critical when you have a distrust of their data gathering and computations. Obviously, if you were accused of murdering your neighbor, your mother's credibility in asserting you were with her and could not have done it would be suspect (as she does dote on her little Benkei) as would any physical evidence she might present to prove your whereabouts.

With regard to political affiliation bias, it goes beyond that to the point of being a liberal worldview consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests. Anyway, I'm not arguing as forcefully against climate change as it might appear, but am only pointing out that there is nothing irrational per se in climate change deniers looking skeptically at the backgrounds of those presenting the climate change conclusions.

It also appears that you're inconsistently arguing both sides of this, on the one hand criticizing those who reject arguments based upon the perceived authority of those making the case, but then appealing to authority based upon the perceived authority of those who make the case by suggesting I should be concerned with the number of bona fide scientists who have concluded a particular way.

So for us, there are no benefits. It's nice though that there's a few more trees and less deaths from cold winters. — Benkei

The OP asks what the positives of climate change might be, and whether the loss of the Netherlands is or isn't a positive is a matter of opinion.

I don't miss the point at all, I know exactly what you are saying, but your left wing bias shines through, to the point that you immediately shut off when you are confronted with some basic economic facts that do not conveniently fit with your political narrative:

↪Emptyheady
Wrong. (...) — Benkei

Tragedy of the commons is an issue that is unique to communal owned resource (i.e. non-private ownership systems). Yes, there are possible solutions to deal with this phenomenon besides the obvious privatisation -- like I stated here -- BUT it does NOT negate the FACT that it is still a specific phenomenon of common resources systems and none-existent in private ownership systems.

An analogy is that populism is a unique (inherent) phenomenon of democracy, and so is the tragedy of the commons to common resources.

I know that I am right here, because this is just a basic economic fact, not a political opinion. Your knee-jerk reaction is meaningless.

Like I said, open a book about economics lad...

I'm curious how is the Nederlands preparing for climate change? Are we going to see floating cities?

Frankly, I don't see how climate change can be avoided. To what degree is debatable. It's just too much to ask for countries to do something about it when the same countries telling the other one's to do something were, in fact, the main contributors to the current situation.

I do fancy me a kosher egg served by wonk who attended a predominantly Jewish university. Right now all I've got is a redneck chick who serves me fried pork rinds who attended DUI school.

How does privatization resolve the issue of rivalry?

Some countries are doing things on there own.
Look at Masdar for example.
You have oil rich countries in the middle east seeking to integrate alternative energy into their infrastructures so that they are not critically reliant upon fossil fuel energy.

I think it is important for western countries to remain competitive.

The technology is pretty much there, the problem is integrating it into the infrastructure.
For developing countries this is less of an issue because it can be done as they grow.
But for the west there is a larger cost because our infrastructures are already developed and will have to be retrofitted and upgraded.

I don't think the west should shy away from this because it will be expensive, the cost for doing this is only going to increase and putting it off will only cost more.
This is because to integrate alternative energy into the infrastructure will require fossil fuel energy costs, it is not until the alternative are integrated that we reap the benefits of offset costs.

Even ignoring the climate argument it is still strategically important that the west remains competitive.
At least to me.

I'm curious how is the Nederlands preparing for climate change? Are we going to see floating cities?

Frankly, I don't see how climate change can be avoided. To what degree is debatable. It's just too much to ask for countries to do something about it when the same countries telling the other one's to do something were, in fact, the main contributors to the current situation. — Question

20 billion was approved in 2014 to improve our existing system of dykes. It's a decent start.

We also had a court case in which citizens demanded the government do more. They won but not sure about the state of any appeal or to what extent the government is taking action to reach the 25%.

Credibility of the person is critical when you have a distrust of their data gathering and computations. Obviously, if you were accused of murdering your neighbor, your mother's credibility in asserting you were with her and could not have done it would be suspect (as she does dote on her little Benkei) as would any physical evidence she might present to prove your whereabouts. — Hanover

That's what lawyers keep telling themselves but it really isn't. Even someone who isn't credible could still be telling the truth. Logically, this doesn't hold any water.

With regard to political affiliation bias, it goes beyond that to the point of being a liberal worldview consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests. Anyway, I'm not arguing as forcefully against climate change as it might appear, but am only pointing out that there is nothing irrational per se in climate change deniers looking skeptically at the backgrounds of those presenting the climate change conclusions.

It's understandable that people do it because so many people around them do this but it's neither here nor there with respect to the veracity of the climate change research. It's also a cop-out for either side to stop listening to each other. "Oh, can't trust what he says because he's a Republican/Democrat". Rational discourse doesn't work that way. And your bare assumption that "a liberal worldview [is] consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests" is very telling. It's not even true for most leftists but that requires you to take others that don't agree with you a bit more seriously to absorb.

It also appears that you're inconsistently arguing both sides of this, on the one hand criticizing those who reject arguments based upon the perceived authority of those making the case, but then appealing to authority based upon the perceived authority of those who make the case by suggesting I should be concerned with the number of bona fide scientists who have concluded a particular way.

No, there's a primary argument: it's a logical fallacy.

There's also a secondary argument that when assuming that credibility has bearing on the veracity of the data, those people claiming it's an issue are left having to resolve the following points:

1. the discrepancy between the split between liberal and conservative scientists and the split between climate change asserters and deniers
2. the blind spot with regard to non-US researchers
3. no data on consensus of researchers in the US in danger zones (e.g. who have worries that presumably would trump political affilition)

The OP asks what the positives of climate change might be, and whether the loss of the Netherlands is or isn't a positive is a matter of opinion. — Hanover

Har har.

That's what lawyers keep telling themselves but it really isn't. Even someone who isn't credible could still be telling the truth. Logically, this doesn't hold any water. — Benkei

Of course. If Hitler says the blue sky is blue, it's still blue, despite his somewhat sullied reputation. However, in many instances (like climate change), we can't just look up at the sky and confirm the veracity of a statement ourselves, so we are left to rely upon the credibility of the speaker to some extent. It's for that reason, for example, if Charles Manson and his band of merry men and women deny having murdered anyone, yet a group of disinterested witnesses tell us otherwise, we tend to believe the disinterested witnesses, mostly because we understand why Manson may be inclined to lie, but we don't understand why the witnesses would.

And we all do this very thing on this forum all the time. For example, once I cited to a website for the proposition that most Palestinians wanted the elimination of Israel, and you ruthlessly ridiculed me over the reference, claiming that I was a patent fool for relying on such a biased poll, damaging my pristine reputation and making me less believable than I previously was.

"Oh, can't trust what he says because he's a Republican/Democrat". Rational discourse doesn't work that way. And your bare assumption that "a liberal worldview [is] consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests" is very telling. It's not even true for most leftists but that requires you to take others that don't agree with you a bit more seriously to absorb. — Benkei

I agree that both sides tend to ignore the nuances of the other, which is why Republicans are often summarized as racist rednecks, but I can recognize that the right does the same to the left as well.

I don't agree though that the polarization we have in US society isn't very real and very deep, which lends itself to a reasonable distrust of anyone who arrives at a conclusion opposed to one side's political position. Using a legal analogy (because that's all I can apparently do), it's reasonable for a jury to have a healthy distrust for both parties because the jury expects that both lawyers are going to present their cases in the best possible light, leaving the jury as the objective body to ferret out the truth. That is, in the legal context, polarization is expected, but an objective body is inserted in to resolve the truth of the issue. I'm not sure, though, that in US society that there's any mainstream objective body waiting to hear both sides and ferret out the truth. The press has openly abdicated it's role as an objective bastion of truth, and the courts are openly questioned by both sides depending upon their ruling.

Of course. If Hitler says the blue sky is blue, it's still blue, despite his somewhat sullied reputation. However, in many instances (like climate change), we can't just look up at the sky and confirm the veracity of a statement ourselves, so we are left to rely upon the credibility of the speaker to some extent. It's for that reason, for example, if Charles Manson and his band of merry men and women deny having murdered anyone, yet a group of disinterested witnesses tell us otherwise, we tend to believe the disinterested witnesses, mostly because we understand why Manson may be inclined to lie, but we don't understand why the witnesses would. — Hanover

Your examples don't change the fact that it is logically incorrect. In the case of Manson, it shouldn't follow logically from the fact that he's untrustworthy but because we have statements from witnesses that better match the facts. If his statement would match the facts and not contradict other statements, then regardless of his trustworthiness, we would have to acquit him due to reasonable doubt. If the statements of witnesses cannot be corroborated by facts, they should not be used no matter the presumed trustworthiness of the witnesses as opposed to those of Manson.

And we all do this very thing on this forum all the time. For example, once I cited to a website for the proposition that most Palestinians wanted the elimination of Israel, and you ruthlessly ridiculed me over the reference, claiming that I was a patent fool for relying on such a biased poll, damaging my pristine reputation and making me less believable than I previously was. — Hanover

You have the unfortunate quality of bringing out the worst in me. Nonetheless, always a good escape from the echo chamber.

I don't agree though that the polarization we have in US society isn't very real and very deep, which lends itself to a reasonable distrust of anyone who arrives at a conclusion opposed to one side's political position. Using a legal analogy (because that's all I can apparently do), it's reasonable for a jury to have a healthy distrust for both parties because the jury expects that both lawyers are going to present their cases in the best possible light, leaving the jury as the objective body to ferret out the truth. That is, in the legal context, polarization is expected, but an objective body is inserted in to resolve the truth of the issue. I'm not sure, though, that in US society that there's any mainstream objective body waiting to hear both sides and ferret out the truth. The press has openly abdicated it's role as an objective bastion of truth, and the courts are openly questioned by both sides depending upon their ruling. — Hanover

Fair enough. So how about you start being more distrusting of Republicans et al. and I'll do the same for US liberals and other leftists. ;)

Your examples don't change the fact that it is logically incorrect. In the case of Manson, it shouldn't follow logically from the fact that he's untrustworthy but because we have statements from witnesses that better match the facts. If his statement would match the facts and not contradict other statements, then regardless of his trustworthiness, we would have to acquit him due to reasonable doubt. If the statements of witnesses cannot be corroborated by facts, they should not be used no matter the presumed trustworthiness of the witnesses as opposed to those of Manson. — Benkei

If you assert an epistemological standard as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt," then I suppose we'll be forced to deny the existence of all sorts of generally accepted facts. For example: What time will Benkei be in today? Well, for the past 10 years, he's shown up at 8:30 to 9:00, so I'd say 8:30 to 9:00. Fair enough, although I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is to say, you've inserted a non-common sense legalistic principle in here. I will say pretty unequivocally, though, that if you asked me whether I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the waters will rise in the Netherlands in the next 100 years to the point of making it uninhabitable, I'd say no. I'd also say that I couldn't assert the opposite either to that level of proof: that the waters won't rise to that point.

To be sure, though, if Manson told me anything that seemed at all incredible, I'd be justifiably less likely to believe him than if a close friend told me the same thing. Why? Well, because Manson is a known psychopath who values truth and his reputation very little. That tidbit does matter.

A juror will be struck for legal cause if he or she indicates a financial interest or a leaning or bias for or against either party. I seriously doubt you'd find it ok to have your wife preside over your divorce proceedings (not that it shall ever to come to that), for example. Per your reasoning, we should not object to any holding by the biased judge or juror because credibility of the decision maker (whether it be a judge, juror, scientist, witness, or whoever) is an irrational criterion to consider when evaluating the decision.