manicbeancounter

manicbeancounter

52p

133 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

71 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Rees-Mogg claim... · 0 replies · +1 points

What you are doing is the same as other voices of diehard remainers. That is refusing to recognise the legitimacy of opposing perspectives, then making opinion statements about those opponents that are not backed up by the evidence.
The constitutional crisis exists in the House of commons attempting to sieze control of the parliamentary timetable from the Executive, in defiance of the will of the people and in an attempt to block the enacting of a move that Parliament voted on by a large majority. What is most absurd, amongst many points is that they are trying to block Parliament gaining greater power. Are Remainers tacitly admitting they are not up to the job of Government? Denigrating opponents, making apocalyptic claims of a no-deal Brexit, along with the inability to substantiate their own arguments (such as achievements of the EU that the UK on its own would be unable to replicate) all suggest this is the case.

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 0 replies · +1 points

My position does not merit 'nuanced'. If policy is having a net negative impact then it should be removed. The net positive impact for the UK is at least contingent on most other countries enacting similar policies. 24 annual COP meetings have failed to convince most countries to adopt such policies.
If those other countries lack the will maybe you should tell them. Start with the tough nuts like China, India, Russia and Iran. Succeed with them and many others fall into line.

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 1 reply · +1 points

Try searching for "UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018". It was about the ninth.
As a quick entrance, could I suggest the four main points in the executive summary?
Also "Table 2.1: Overview of the status and progress of G20 members, including on Cancun pledges and NDC targets." The G20 countries in 2017 had almost 80% of global emissions, and between them will see their emissions increase.

I did some analysis last year on the report. An interesting point is that despite President Trump taking the US out of the Paris Agreement the US is still likely to see a larger emissions decrease between 2015 and 2030 than the EU within the Paris Agreement.
https://manicbeancounter.com/?s=Gap+Report+2018+

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 0 replies · +1 points

The use of the term "deniers" against opponents for what some of them are alleged to believe I find as unacceptable in climate as in other areas of belief.
The difference between the other types of global issues is that they are divisable. The UK stopping child abuse in the UK will make a big difference to the children who would have been abused. The UK preventing a terrorist attack will save lives. The UK cutting its emissions by 80% over 50 years will make cumulative emissions a fraction of 1% lower than if it did not act.
You, or any group you belong to, do not have the "tools to fix climate change". 24 years of annual COP meetings, organized by the UNFCCC. have failed to get global agreement on reducing emissions. Try reading some of the country INDC submissions from 2015. Try, for instance, Pakistan, Iran, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria & South Africa. Specifically look at the whether any applied policy will result in emissions being lower in 2030 than in 2015. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/indc/Su...
Look at the context of the 2C target of 25% reduction by 2030, or the 1.5C target of a 55% reduction.
Collectively you do not have power over the requisite tools. For those countries who deny you control over their policy might view this denial of as preventing harm to their nations.

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 2 replies · +1 points

In addition you state
"Your position seems to be "We can't change it, so let's just press on and accept it." "
My position is far more nuanced than that.
I do not use the collective "we" as for mitigation policies to deliver the "we" must include countries with the vast majority of emissions, whereas the current policy countries account for a minority of emissions. This is an error made by policy proponents, not by me,

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 0 replies · +1 points

"I fail to see why the precautionary principle should not be applied in this case."
Simply because you cannot see the counter-arguments does not mean they don't exist. To understand the issues you need to look at the counter-arguments from those who produce them. The simple case against using the precautionary principle is
(a) the policy is costly and in the extreme form harms liberal-democracies.
(b) it does not deliver. To stop any possible climate change requires reducing global emissions to zero. In this connection try reading para 17 of the Adoption of the Paris Agreement.
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l...

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 0 replies · +1 points

What if a load of ideologues want to replace liberal-democracy to impose policies that will not achieve the intended objectives? When the UK suffers similar consequences as Venezuelan socialism, what reversal will there be?

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 2 replies · +1 points

Calling opponents "deniers" gives a false sense of one's own superiority. You need to make your own case, not falsely misrepresent a case against. Any climate projections of situations fundamentally different from today requires a whole series of assumptions, many not specified.
But even if you properly make the scientific case, that is not sufficient to justify costly mitigation policies. The fact is that there is the collective impact of all mitigation policies is not sufficient to stop aggregate global emissions rising. Costly mitigation policies in UK or the EU will not a substantial difference to future climate. As such it is false to claim such UK policies are to safeguard future generations. They impose costly policies, with near zero impact on future global emissions.
I give more detail below. https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/03/15/nobel-lau...

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 3 replies · +1 points

A measure of the lack of understanding is in failing to grasp the basics of policy. To stop any claimed harms from human emissions requires global emissions to be net zero in a few decades. The Paris Agreement exempts "developing" countries from any obligation to reduce their emissions in the near future. It is not possible to reduce global emissions to zero when countries with >60% of emissions (and effectively 100% of emissions growth) are exempt. Another issue is that countries that rely on the sale of fossil fuels for a major part of their national income will have to leave their valuable resources in the ground. Nobody has tried to persuade the likes of Russia, Iran
and Saudi Arabia that this is in their national interests.
A good source to appreciate the issue is the "UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018." The key to understanding effective policy is working out the marginal impact of any proposed new actions, or the UK's current policies, on that whole issue.

90 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Ici Londres - S... · 7 replies · +1 points

A small amount of warming so far does not mean catastrophic impacts in the future. Where is the best modelling? However fancy the models, conclusions radically different from recent past experience are dependent on assumptions more than empirical reality.
No proposals will make a significant difference. The reason is that global warming is caused by global emissions. The theory is that avoiding dangerous global warming requires global emissions to be net zero in a few decades. Look up "UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018" to see the difference. Then answer two questions
1. Are you able to persuade developing countries to stop collectively increasing their emissions and start reducing them rapidly? (Developing countries are as defined in the 1992 Rio Declaration now have >80% of the global population & >60% of global emissions)
2. Are you able to persuade countries who rely on the production of fossil fuels for a large part of their national income to abandon this reliance in a generation? That includes Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan.