Secondhand smoke: Nations producing less greenhouse gas most vulnerable to climate change

February 5, 2016
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A new study by University of Queensland and WCS shows a dramatic global mismatch between nations producing the most greenhouse gases and the ones most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The study shows that the highest emitting countries are ironically the least vulnerable to climate change effects such as increased frequency of natural disasters, changing habitats, human health impacts, and industry stress.

Those countries emitting the least amount of are most vulnerable.

The majority of the most vulnerable countries are African and Small Island States. These countries are exposed to serious environmental change such as oceanic inundation or desertification. They are also generally the least developed nations, having few resources available to cope with these issues.

"There is an enormous global inequality in which those countries most responsible for causing climate change are the least vulnerable to its effects," said lead author Glenn Althor of University of Queensland. "It is time that this persistent and worsening climate inequity is resolved, and for the largest emitting countries to act."

"This is like a non-smoker getting cancer from second-hand smoke, while the heavy smokers continue to puff away. Essentially we are calling for the smokers to pay for the health care of the non-smokers they are directly harming," said co-author James Watson of University of Queensland and WCS.

The study found that 20 of the 36 highest emitting countries - including the U.S. Canada, Australia, China, and much of Western Europe - were least vulnerable. Eleven of the 17 countries with low to moderate emissions were most vulnerable to climate change. Most were found in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The authors say the finding acts as a disincentive for high-emitting "free-rider" countries to mitigate their emissions.

The number of acutely vulnerable countries will worsen by 2030 say the authors as climate change related pressures such as droughts, floods, biodiversity loss and disease mount.

"The recent Paris agreement was a significant step forward in global climate negotiations" said study co-author Richard Fuller. "There now needs to be meaningful mobilization of these policies, to achieve national emissions reductions while helping the most vulnerable adapt to ".

The study appears today in the journal Scientific Reports.

Explore further: Emissions rising too high despite the reduction targets set before the Paris negotiations

Related Stories

Climate change adaptation in high income countries

November 10, 2015

We all know that the climate is changing, but how can we best prepare for some of the changes that lie ahead? Should coastal cities change their building codes to accommodate rising sea levels? Should we allocate more resources ...

Climate vulnerable nations appeal for harder UN goal

November 11, 2015

A coalition of nations most at risk from climate change appealed Wednesday for a crucial UN summit to enshrine a much tougher target on global warming, warning that more than one billion lives were at stake.

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

New studies take a second look at coral bleaching culprit

December 7, 2016

Scientists have called superoxide out as the main culprit behind coral bleaching: The idea is that as this toxin build up inside coral cells, the corals fight back by ejecting the tiny energy- and color-producing algae living ...

Cosmic dust found in city rooftop gutters

December 7, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers with Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum in London, Project Stardust in Norway and Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, has found samples of cosmic dust in the ...

76 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2016
"There is an enormous global inequality in which those countries most responsible for causing climate change are the least vulnerable to its effects," said lead author Glenn Althor of University of Queensland. "It is time that this persistent and worsening climate inequity is resolved, and for the largest emitting countries to act."


Another instance of the never ending use of AGW propaganda for the redistribution of resources. It is like the televangelist who promises you to can get into heaven despite your sins if you will just send money.
LifeBasedLogic
Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 05, 2016
Another instance of the never ending use of AGW propaganda for the redistribution of resources. It is like the televangelist who promises you to can get into heaven despite your sins if you will just send money.


Yawn. Same old vapid, denialist crap, offering nothing but bare assertions ("it's all propaganda, but I can't be bothered to offer any evidence for why this specific instance is.") and pearl clutching ("ending our dependence on fossil fuels is going to be far worse than entering a new epoch where temperatures are higher, on average, than humans evolved to live in, guyz!!!!").

Will you please find something else to do with your time, please? Surely, it would would be better spent investing in Florida's beach front property.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2016
thefurlong,

You can refuse to admit what the article is about, but this one is all about redistribution, beginning with the title and continuing throughout the article to the last sentence of the article. It is all about redistribution.

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2016
Every single nation is vulnerable from the AGW lies.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2016
You can refuse to admit what the article is about,

No, I am not. Stop jumping to conclusions. All I told you is that you are making bare assertions. In this particular case, your bare assertion was that this is propaganda.
but this one is all about redistribution...

You are, once again, committing the appeal to motive fallacy, in which you assume that motive has any actual bearing on the argument being made. That is all you have done.

What you have not done, which would help if you actually had a leg to stand on (which you never do) is actually CHALLENGE THE RESEARCH BEING MADE.

Furthermore, you are complaining about the suggestion that we should pay for the harm our practices cause to other people, which, among the set of sh*tty things to complain about, ranks up there with complaining about the dearth of child labor.

Congratulations. You sound like a terrible person.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2016
thefurlong,

I am not complaining about paying for the harm we have caused to other people [through AGW]. I am only pointing out that these articles primary purpose is redistribution of resources. And you should note that these articles call, not for remuneration from harm, which hasn't happened, but remuneration in anticipation of supposed future harm.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2016
I am only pointing out that these articles primary purpose is redistribution of resources

You are skirting the issue. You said,
Another instance of the never ending use of AGW propaganda

My qualm with you is not about your claim about "redistribution of resources," which I have not argued for or against (yet).
It is about your accusation that it is propaganda. You have offered no evidence for your claim. You are merely stating it outright, as an established truth, rather than something supported with evidence or argument. Hence, it is a BARE ASSERTION.
these articles call, not for remuneration from harm, which hasn't happened,

1) What you are saying is that we should do nothing, instead of anticipating the harm we'll cause.
2) It HAS happened already:
http://klima-tuva...-tuvalu/
http://www.irinne...hit-list
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2016
thefurlong,

Both of your links are about risk of problems in the future, not actual problems today.

The islands you note in the first link are in danger because they live a few feet above sea level. The same can be noted for areas of Florida and of course, New Orleans. Anyone who lives a few feet above sea level at the sea is in danger of flooding -- always has been and always will be.

The other link notes arid places where there are droughts and droughts are expected, places subject to flooding where floods are expected and places where there are frequent storms and frequent storms are expected. We could also name places where the weather is clement and clement weather is expected.

Again, these articles are about redistribution of resources now for claimed damage in the future which has been claimed for years and hasn't happened. Pure social redistribution.
dan42day
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
It seems to me that these "underdeveloped" countries are producing prodigious amounts of the one commodity that is not only the most toxic to the environment, but also the main cause of starvation and disease, namely humans.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,

Both of your links are about risk of problems in the future, not actual problems today.

Wrong. I can see you did not fully read either article.

Here is a quote from the first:
Water: The islands of Tuvalu have progressively lost their fresh groundwater resources, not only due to sea-level rise, but also because of human pollution


Notice the words, "have progressively lost"

Here is a quote from the second:
[Malawi] has had two serious droughts in the past 20 years and a prolonged dry spell in 2004.


Maybe you think AGW is a hoax because you can't be bothered to fully read any legitimate research you've read. Didn't they teach you to read passages fully through in high school in order to understand them in school?
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
Anyone who lives a few feet above sea level at the sea is in danger of flooding -- always has been and always will be.

This is an empty statement. It's like arguing against the link between smoking and mortality by noting anyone who is human is in danger of dying. Well, duh.

But if a human smokes, he/she is MORE in danger of dying sooner and having health complications.

It's similar with these coastal regions, and as I demonstrated with my last two comments, at least one ALREADY IS experiencing the deleterious effects of climate change.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
We could also name places where the weather is clement and clement weather is expected.

1) And so, because those other places will have clement weather, we should just ignore the other ones that will suffer? You have not been doing a very good job of convincing me that you are not a terrible person.
2) Eventually WE'LL ALL BE AFFECTED. You aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

Climate deniers are some of the most myopic bunch of people on the planet. It won't make a difference how clement your weather is if there are food shortages from food web disruptions, mass extinctions, and mass migrations from all the people who weren't lucky enough to live in your region.

Ugh. You guys are like little (bratty) children. Please go away.

(Also, I would like to note you STILL have not furnished any evidence or argument to support your bare assertion that this article is propaganda)
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,
Lets assume you are a true believe and are not promoting a socialist agenda, your unreasoning fear does not make me a bad person, it just makes you afraid. It is understandable that you would lash out at others in your fear.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,
Lets assume you are a true believe and are not promoting a socialist agenda, your unreasoning fear does not make me a bad person, it just makes you afraid. It is understandable that you would lash out at others in your fear.

All I will say to that is, stop being such a delicate flower.

Beyond that, I'm going to ignore this waste of white space, and simply point out that you have not responded to my demonstration that you didn't fully read the two articles I sent you, that, at least Tuvalu HAS already been affected by climate change, and that you STILL have not provided an argument defending your BARE ASSERTION that this article is propaganda.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,

You should look up the meaning of the word propaganda. It is any information -- true or false -- which is used to promote a political agenda.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,

You should look up the meaning of the word propaganda. It is any information -- true or false -- which is used to promote a political agenda.

I'm still waiting for an argument defending your initial assertion that this article is propaganda.

Maybe you should furnish your ad-hominems with actual evidence.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2016
I don't have to argue that the article calls for redistribution of resources. If you actually read the article, you will see that. In fact you have read it and know it because you are arguing in favour of that redistribution. You should try to be honest.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
thefurlong,

You should look up the meaning of the word propaganda. It is any information -- true or false -- which is used to promote a political agenda.

Also, that, is incorrect.
Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:
" ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc."

Here is the definition from oxford:
"chiefly derogatory Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view:"

Let me help you out, since you seem incapable of complex thought.

Even if your definition were correct (it isn't), you would have to demonstrate that this is for political purposes, rather than other purposes. For example, it could be suggesting we help vulnerable nations out for HUMANITARIAN reasons, and not a political agenda.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2016
I don't have to argue that the article calls for redistribution of resources. If you actually read the article, you will see that. In fact you have read it and know it because you are arguing in favour of that redistribution. You should try to be honest.

Let's assume that you are correct that this is about "redistribution of wealth".

You fallaciously concluding that that means it is necessarily political in nature. Let's be clear. You are suggesting that calling for "redistribution of wealth" is always done as a matter of ideology, which, by the way, is a hugely cynical way of looking at things (still looking like a terrible person, BTW).

But, we can see that this is not the case. For example, if somebody makes their wealth off of your suffering, through no fault of your own, it is NOT political for them to pay for the damage they caused. It is the RIGHT THING TO DO. It has nothing to do with politics.

So, sorry, you'll have to do better than that.
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2016
Doggie is stuck in his rigid dogma, unable to move, an easy target. He fails to understand that if someone is harming you, getting him to stop it is not some unfair "redistribution" of resources, it is basic fairness , . . and survival.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2016
gkam,

It is your delusion the people are being harmed.

It is no delusion that AGW has consistently been used to promote social redistribution. This article is another example of that.
FritzVonDago
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2016
This article is so much HOGWASH!
leetennant
4 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2016
Yeah, heaven forbid polluters should pay to clean up their own damn mess. SOCIALISM*

*Brought to you by people who clearly don't even know what this word means.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
It is your delusion the people are being harmed.

Well, no, it isn't. Unfortunately for you, we have historical evidence, like what's happening to Tuvalu, flooding in Nepal (http://wwf.panda....al.cfm), the fact that extreme weather events have increased in severity, and droughts and dangerous heat waves are increasing in frequency. This is not fiction.

This is fact.

Our POV is supported by evidence. Yours is supported by special pleading.


It is no delusion that AGW has consistently been used to promote social redistribution.

No, you have it backwards. AGW is not the MEANS to the END of remuneration (or as you tellingly call it, social redistribution). Remuneration is part of the MEANS to the END of protecting vulnerable countries from the damage wrought by their wealthier neighbors.

This article is another example of that.

You still have not produced evidence for this.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2016
thefurlong,

Of course, you will continue to hold to your assertion that redistribution is actually payment for damages. The damages you cite are non-existent and/or claimed to happen in the future.

When you live on an island a few feet above sea level, you are in danger of flooding. When you have a very limited aquifer and the population needs exceed the regeneration rate of the aquifer, you may expect to need more water. It is not AGW causing their problems, it is the choice of their ancestors to inhabit an island with limited resources a few feet above sea level.

Other places you linked to are desert areas which continue to be subject to drought or areas subject to flooding which continue to flood and areas subject to storm which continue to experience storms.

None of this is due to AGW.

The redistribution of resources called for is not for remuneration from damages, it is simple socialism.

leetennant
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2016
Yeah, Dogbert, a billion people will lose their access to fresh water and entire countries will become uninhabitable but that serves them right for being brown.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
leetennant,

Why do you dismiss a billion people and entire countries?

If you cared about people, you would not be so callous.

Fortunately, your prophecy is no better than your compassion.

leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
It's called sarcasm, dogbert, It's aimed at people like you who claim climate change doesn't matter because the victims happen to be brown. Or did you not just claim that what happens to Pacific Islander is irrelevant because, hey, they're the ones who chose to live on islands?
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
@dogbert
Ugh. All you do is repeat yourself. It's like you are incapable of learning. It would be counterproductive for me to address everything you wrote at once, so I will take this argument by argument.
When you live on an island a few feet above sea level, you are in danger of flooding.


This is a spurious argument. What you've built is a straw man.

Nobody's arguing with you that people on islands or in coastal regions aren't in danger of flooding.

It's like I told you that obesity leads to higher rates of heart disease in older people, and they retorted,
"So, what? When you're older, you are in danger of having a heart attack."

Now try to focus. We're arguing that people in island and coastal regions are MORE in danger of flooding, and that the flooding will be MORE extreme, due to AGW. Understand?
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
thefurlong,
Now try to focus. We're arguing that people in island and coastal regions are MORE in danger of flooding, and that the flooding will be MORE extreme, due to AGW. Understand?


You keep saying that and I keep agreeing that that is what you are saying. You continue to say we need to pay people now for something you thing is going to happen in the future.

To quote you again "... flooding will be MORE extreme ...". Not damage done to them now, something you believe will happen to them in the future. Remuneration for something which has not happened is simply socialism disguised as remuneration.

leetennant,
I have nothing to say to you. Racists deserve no respect. You should just go away.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
Hey, Bow-wow, cool it.

Did you have your child inoculated for disease?

Why would you do such a waste of money?
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2016
You keep saying that and I keep agreeing that that is what you are saying. You continue to say we need to pay people now for something you thing is going to happen in the future.

No, we need to protect people, from what will happen, AND WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW. You have been and are STILL conveniently ignoring that second part. I showed you that Tuvalu is being affected, as is Nepal.

And like a good little conservabot, at the mention of mitigating the damage THAT WE'RE CAUSING, your knee is jerking so hard that Karl Westphal stirred uneasily in his grave.

All they said was,
There now needs to be meaningful mobilization of these policies, to achieve national emissions reductions while helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change


Nobody is going to slap on a Khrushchev mask, pick you up bodily, turn you upside-down, and bodily shake all of the loose change from your pockets. Calm down.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Your implication that I don't want us to help people who need help is simply a projection of your own bias. The U. S. spends billions every year to help people through out the world, by our government and individually. That is unlikely to stop. But the notion that we or anyone else owes someone because they live in a flood plain or a desert or on an island or a coastline subject to storms and flooding is simply not true.

The AGW scaremongering was, is and apparently will continue to be a scheme to force the redistribution of resources.

When science is abused for the promotion of a political agenda, it should be pointed out and resisted. I will continue to do that.

I fully expect you to continue to promote the agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
@dogbert
That comment is a profusion of incorrect assumptions and bad arguments.

Among them are the following:

1) We are only talking about the U.S. - This is plainly wrong. There are many other developed countries aligned or not aligned with the U.S., China chiefly among the worst contributors to carbon GHG production.

2) The U.S., or any other country, spending billions to help people is the same thing as the that country spending money to mitigate the damage from climate change.

3) The claim that a country is "spending billions to help people" is nebulous, and is therefore designed to stifle any further conversation on how that country is NOT helping. For example, HOW are they spending billions? HOW does it help mitigate the effects of AGW predicted?

4) People who live in areas prone to natural distasters regardless of climate change don't require MORE help even though AGW is predicted to amplify (and HAS AMPLIFIED) those natural disasters.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
(continued)
5) AGW is scaremongering.

6) Saying helping people who are vulnerable is redistribution of resources, while ignoring that one of the resources that have already been redistributed by the biggest offenders is security, clean air, and water.

7) Framing helping people as redistribution of resources. This is not strictly a fallacy, but it is a deceptive use of language. It's like calling volunteering in a hospice unpaid labor. While not false it undermines the point.

8) AGW's purpose is to promote a political agenda, rather than that political agendas have developed around the need to mitigate the damage from AGW.

9) Science is being abused. In reality, you are simply misinformed about what the science says, and have chosen to burn that straw man, rather than the edifice of climate science.

10) Saying I am promoting an agenda, which is deceptive use of language. You're supporting an agenda, too. So, what?

11) Assuming promoting an agenda makes me wrong.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Continue to conflate compassionate assistance with your social agenda. That is counter productive to your own agenda.

Socialism is not a result of compassion. Compassionate help is not redistribution.

But go ahead and conflate socialism with assistance.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Continue to conflate compassionate assistance with your social agenda. That is counter productive to your own agenda.

Socialism is not a result of compassion. Compassionate help is not redistribution.

But go ahead and conflate socialism with assistance.

You did not respond to any of the points I made in the last two comments. I have accused you of making many bad arguments, in response to the comment you made above. Respond to those accusations, and then we can talk about whether or not I espouse socialism, and whether I am doing it in this context, and whether it means what you think it does.

Let me help you out, and see if you are capable of having a proper debate.

Start with 11): You are acting as if having an agenda makes me wrong. This is an appeal to motive, and is a fallacy.

Respond to this, please.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Just ask the Bow-wow if he inoculated his kids for disease, and how he feels about spending that money for something not likely to happen.

I want to hear it from him.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Sure, I can repeat. You don't seem slow, but O. K.

Yes. Using scare tactics and claimed science to promote a political agenda is wrong. And you know that as well as I do.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Sure, I can repeat. You don't seem slow, but O. K.

Yes. Using scare tactics and claimed science to promote a political agenda is wrong. And you know that as well as I do.


No, you're equivocating, here. I am not using "wrong" in the moral sense. I am using it in the argumentative sense--as in you are implying that my having an agenda discredits my argument. This is an appeal to motive.

See http://rationalwi..._to_bias
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Did Doggie waste money on inoculations?

Why is he dodging the question?

Perhaps deep down inside, fighting political prejudice, he understands there are some events we cannot chance.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

The agenda is what is wrong with the argument.

AGW is simply the mechanism used to incite fear to gain acceptance of the agenda of redistribution.

It is wrong to so misuse science.
It is wrong to incite fear to gain political advantage.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

The agenda is what is wrong with the argument.

AGW is simply the mechanism used to incite fear to gain acceptance of the agenda of redistribution.

It is wrong to so misuse science.
It is wrong to incite fear to gain political advantage.


Stop changing the topic.

Point 11 is not about morality. It is STRICTLY about you attempting to discredit my argument by telling me I have an agenda. This is why we get frustrated with you guys, because you don't even know what constitutes a valid counter argument.

Now, I know you think I am morally wrong. We can talk about that later. Right now, you need to, at least acknowledge that my agenda does not discredit my argument, so we can move on.

Note that I gave that comment a 1, because it is a poor counter argument.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Your agenda does, in fact, discredit your argument.

I can accept that you actually believe the AGW disinformation. I cannot, however, believe that you actually believe the world owes payment to third world countries for damage which has not happened from climate change.

The redistribution is what identified your agenda and discredits your argument.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Your agenda does, in fact, discredit your argument.

Then, you are making a logical fallacy. I guess you are ok with that.
I cannot, however, believe that you actually believe the world owes payment to third world countries for damage which has not happened from climate change.

1) It has happened. You keep ignoring the fact that Tuvalu and Nepal already HAVE been damaged by climate change.

2) Actually, no, the article (and I) are not saying we should pay developing countries. It is saying that, first, because developed countries are less vulnerable to AGW, they have a disincentive to act on it. Second, because of this failure to act, vulnerable countries that are not major contributors to AGW will UNFAIRLY have to PAY for this failure to act. Third, we should ANTICIPATE the damage that will be done to the vulnerable countries.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Yes.We both understand you are fully committed to social redistribution.

And I remain opposed to the AGW socialist agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
The redistribution is what identified your agenda and discredits your argument.

You are trying to derail the conversation, here, so let's get this out of the way so that you no longer feel the need to use this strategy.

I am Super Mecha Hitler, ok? I hate das juden, am powered by the screams of tortured kittens, and chew on babies. Also, I work for the DMV, and I want you to accept global warming because my robot Third Reich army is powered by the redistribution of wealth.

There, now, can we move on to substantive conversation?

Now, once again, I have given your comment a 1 because you are not debating correctly.

Let's move on to point 1), since you are clearly comfortable with making a logical fallacy and admitting it.

Now, do you acknowledge that the U.S. (and other U.S. powers) are not the only contributor of GHGs. In particular, do you agree that this article would also call for China to aid countries vulnerable to climate change?
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

No. I do not agree that any person or country owes any other person or country for damage which you imagine will happen in the future and which you believe will happen because of supposed human mediated climate.

This is not about formal argument theory. This is about socialism using the climate to push a socialist agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

No. I do not agree that any person or country owes any other person or country for damage which you imagine will happen in the future and which you believe will happen because of supposed human mediated climate.

This is not about formal argument theory. This is about socialism using the climate to push a socialist agenda.

You did not answer my question. I did not ask for your opinion on whether countries are owed anything. Read my question again, and stop jumping to conclusions.
This is not about formal argument theory.

Arguments without proper logic are pointless. You might as well be arguing about which primary color is prettiest.

You are rapidly demonstrating that you have no regard for logic. It is no wonder you exhibit such poor critical thinking skills.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Insult is the last refuge of the socialist.
You have insulted me many times. But your insults do not further your agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Insult is the last refuge of the socialist.
You have insulted me many times. But your insults do not further your agenda.

You have repeated the same thing many times, failing to react in an adaptive way to disparate lines of inquiry.

Unfortunately, your repetition DOES further YOUR agenda, because that's how the deniosphere operates--by repeating lies over and over again until they stick. If you had any legitimate argument, you would not have to resort to such chicanery.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Do rugged individualists inoculate their children for diseases they may never get anyway?

Dogbert is too scared to reply.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Don't accuse me of your lies. I am not the one who is claiming a climate apocalypse or pushing a socialist agenda.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong,

Don't accuse me of your lies. I am not the one who is claiming a climate apocalypse or pushing a socialist agenda.

I am not accusing you of my "lies" (which are, strangely confirmed by scientific evidence and recent history. Funny how that works). If am accusing your of YOUR lies.

Thus far, you have demonstrated no neuorplasticity. Pretty much every response of yours has been a variant of "you are promoting socialism and redistribution of wealth." That's it.

Now, if you are propagandist, as I suspect, I guess you should keep doing what you're doing, because it works very well.

If, however, you are not, then you should be ashamed of yourself. I am not insulting you when I accuse you of poor critical thinking skills. I am calling a spade a spade.

If you don't want to be insulted, and you aren't a propagandist, then make an attempt at actually responding to arguments instead of inflexibly repeating dogma regardless of what is said to you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Do rugged individualists inoculate their children for diseases they may never get anyway?

Dogbert is too scared to reply.

I like this argument. Unfortunately, dogbert is stuck in an infinite loop, so I don't think he's physically capable of responding. Either that, or his context free grammar has no transition rule for "inoculation"
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
gkam,

I don't know what your problem is with vaccines, but just stop using them if you are so scared of them.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
gkam,

I don't know what your problem is with vaccines, but just stop using them if you are so scared of them.

Again, you misunderstand.

The point is comparing preventing disease through getting vaccinations to preventing damage through mitigating AGW. It is a good comparison, since denialists love to act as if the presence of any uncertainty in a prediction means we shouldn't act on it.

In the case of vaccines, you aren't likely to get measles, or polio, but you still vaccinate despite the relatively low probability.

Therefore, if you get vaccines, then it is inconsistent for you NOT to do what you can to curb the production of GHGs in the event that the majority of scientists don't turn out to all just be lyin' and makin' you pissed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
@dogbert
That is not to say that there is a low probability that the predictions of AGW are correct. It is merely to illustrate that if even if you ascribe a low probability to it, you should err on the side of caution, rather than take your chances.

Superficially, though, I note that this is evocative of Pascal's wager, the major difference being that we have a vast body of empirical evidence for AGW, whereas for God, we have only Bible, its believers, and hearsay.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Doggie knew what I meant. He just could not admit it.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
thefurlong and gkam,

If every human throughout history were as afraid of progress as you two, humans would still be hunting with a thigh bone. Fortunately, most of us are not afraid of everything.

The earth has been coming out of an ice age for about 20,000 years. Humans have prospered from a warming earth. The earth is not dying now and we aren't either.

Chill.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Afraid of progress?

You apparently do not know my history.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
@dogbert
CCCOMBO BREAKER! At least you stopped repeating yourself.

You have a very strange definition of progress. Progress is not unintended KNOWN consequences of technology (that's been pretty much the same for the last 100 years, BTW). Progress is developing new technology--you know, like green energy.

The earth has been coming out of an ice age for about 20,000 years.

Yes. 20,000 years.

It took at least 10 TIMES longer to warm to our current temperature, than it took for the world to warm the equivalent amount last century, but do keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Humans have prospered from a warming earth.

Ugh. Fine. Then go live in Death Valley. You'll be fine.
The earth is not dying now and we aren't either.

Stop making straw men. We are not saying the earth won't survive. We're not even saying humans won't survive. We're merely saying things will be BAD. The earth has been through much worse, but humans have not.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
"If every human throughout history were as afraid of progress as you two,"
----------------------------------

Do you invent your own reality like Reagan?

Do you know why he did?
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Hi dogbert. :)

Mate, I'm trying hard to see why you keep repeating your 'redistribution' gripe. IIRC, I explained last time that in every national/social endeavor there is 'redistribution/re-allocation' going on, irrespective of system of society/govt.

Consider:

In Communist systems, power/wealth is 'redistributed' UPWARDS to those in control by violent means.

In Theocratic systems, power/wealth is redistributed UPWARDS to the priests in control of fearful/ignorant 'believers'.

In Capitalist systems, power/wealth is redistributed UPWARDS to those exploiting the system via corrupt monopolistic means.

In Socialist systems, power/wealth is redistributed UPWARDS to the elite in control of the 'appointment/election' processes.

In small 's' democratic socialistic systems, aim is that power/wealth redistributed FAIRLY (some upwards, horizontally, downwards) in sustainable manner for benefit of all.

The only choice is 'which manner' of redistribution; not 'if'. :)
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Hi again, dogbert. :)

Regarding your blase' attitude to warming, it is disturbing to think that you may be blinding yourself to what is happening globally NOW, right under your nose.

Recently we have got indisputable confirmation that many species are extending habitats towards the poles. That may involve some limited benefits to some species/humans 'locally' there, but there will also be unintended consequences which may destabilize whole ecosystems/protections upon which local/regional populations depended for millennia for their food, amenity/health etc.

Especially serious is the march towards previously unsurvivable latitudes by certain MOSQUITOES/other disease vectors which will affect local flora, fauna, human health/transportation/communications infrastructure/costs, food/raw-material crops etc.

Your simplistic focus on very limited 'benefits' of warming would be exasperating to anyone in Oz/other countries 'on the front lines' of all this. Think of others, mate. :)
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
RealityCheck,

I understand that you prefer socialist systems. All socialist systems ever implemented fully failed disastrously.

Capitalist systems allow the creation of wealth. Socialist systems depress the creation of wealth.

When you look at what has happened to the U. S. in just 7 years, you should understand why socialism is to be avoided.

As to warming. The earth has been warming for 20,000 years to our great benefit.

We have the technology today to wipe out disease carrying mosquitoes, if that is what you are worrying about.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
I suggest doggie look up the Quality of Life ratings so he can find the Socialist nations have the highest.

Sometimes selfishness comes back to bite us.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
gkam,
I suggest doggie look up the Quality of Life ratings so he can find the Socialist nations have the highest.


Sure. Tell that the the people living in Argentina, Venezuela, Greece, ...
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
Those nations suffer from political corruption, not socialism. Did you look to see how much better life is in the Scandinavian nations? Hmmmm?

I'll bet you were too afraid of what you would find.

I see Stumpy is back and awarding me ones, along with Ira, who actually follows me around to rate down whatever I say, even if he has the same opinion. Reminds me of the Tea-Baggers in Congress.

It is an interesting character deficit. Thinking it was the way things worked here, I started doing it, too. But I got no satisfaction, . . . it must mean more to Ira than to me.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
I see Stumpy is back and awarding me ones,

Your blurts deserve them.

along with Ira,

Your blurts deserve them.

who actually follows me around to rate down whatever I say, even if he has the same opinion.

I don't have to justify my votes for you or my votes for anybody else too. Your comments are silly, shallow, mostly wrong, over simplicating, and remind me of protest signage.

Reminds me of the Tea-Baggers in Congress.

What does that mean? Where you hoping that would prevent me from pointing out that all your blurts are more like Sarah Palin then they are like a thinking person who actually knows what they are talking about?

It is an interesting character deficit.

Yeah, noticing how silly your sloganeering is is a character deficit.

Thinking it was the way things worked here, I started doing it, too.

Right from your first postum and you have not slowed a bit right up to today.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
We have a problem today with AGW, and some of us are doing our part to help reverse it, and others just blabber on with personal nonsense.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
No downwinders have to worry about my energy emissions, because I do not have any, with my PV for the house and the EV.

Others here just talk.
RealityCheck
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2016
Hi dogbert. :)
All socialist systems ever implemented fully failed disastrously.
You are historically incorrect/premature; history didn't 'end yesterday'.
Capitalist systems allow the creation of wealth. Socialist systems depress the creation of wealth.
All 'nations' are 'social constructs' via laws and customs and co-operative effort. It's the communist/capitalist/criminal crazy/greedy individuals and gangs who destroy/exploit and ruin everything they touch.
When you look at what has happened to the U. S. in just 7 years, you should understand why socialism is to be avoided.
Yet Capitalism rules the 'markets'. The more 'markets' are 'free', the more/quicker they FAIL/RUIN.
The earth has been warming for 20,000 years to our great benefit.
Present warming too sudden for absorbing/adapting new costs/effects.
We have technology today to wipe out disease carrying mosquitoes
All? Everywhere? Ticks, Flies Viruses, bacteria, parasites?

Naive. :)
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2016
RealityCheck,
Yet Capitalism rules the 'markets'. The more 'markets' are 'free', the more/quicker they FAIL/RUIN.


The market is decidedly not free. The Obama administration spent about 4.5 trillion dollars propping up the market over about a six year period. Interest rates are being held to near 0 and have been for years. These and other manipulations and regulations have stagnated the U. S. economy and prevented any real growth.

We have technology today to wipe out disease carrying mosquitoes

All? Everywhere? Ticks, Flies Viruses, bacteria, parasites?


No, of course not. But we have the technology -- gene driven technology -- to target and actually eradicate specific species.

Naive. :)


It is naive to think we can't do this. We can.

RealityCheck
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2016
Hi dogbert. :)
The market is decidedly not free. The Obama administration spent about 4.5 trillion dollars propping up the market over about a six year period.
Yes, I agree. Not 'free'. Never was. Always being manipulated by private/govt scheisters in control. And when such markets fail, govt has always stepped in to SOCIALIZE the damage which the PRIVATE profiteers caused and profited from. Govt should have left the GFC 'markets' to FAIL; and bailed out only MORTGAGEES (home owners); and imprisoned/shot every one along that chain of fraudulent 'market' of 'Financial Instruments/Derivatives' etc (maybe that would deter future frauds).
- to target and actually eradicate specific species.
Yes, our OZ scientists are in the forefront of such mosquitoes eradication techniques. However they admit there is always a residual population left (however small) which recovers quickly to previous numbers after cyclones bring water and more windblown mosquitoes from far away. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.