Do you Want to Fight Climate Change or Keep your Job?

[Endus]

A large deviation from an arbitrarily set norm from past years

It's not "arbitrary", at all.

You still haven't proven that this extremity is from climate change as opposed to temperature.

Since one of the most readily-observable effects of climate change is increasing global temperatures, that's a question that answers itself, and not in your favour.

And again; this was all covered in the source material I linked, which you still have clearly not bothered to look at.

[PC2]

It's not "arbitrary", at all.



Since one of the most readily-observable effects of climate change is increasing global temperatures, that's a question that answers itself, and not in your favour.

And again; this was all covered in the source material I linked, which you still have clearly not bothered to look at.

Climate change =/= Increasing global temperatures

[Garnier Fructis]

Climate change =/= Increasing global temperatures

Which was not what he said. One is a consequence of the other.

Jesus.

[PC2]

Which was not what he said. One is a consequence of the other.

Jesus.

Climate change increases the likelihood of extreme weather events, and as the global temperature rises, heat waves get worse. Snowpacks become unreliable, which is a major water source for a lot of people. Some crops get fucked.

These are all problems we can handle because we're in a rich country. People in poor third world countries? Yes, they're going to get fucked.

"Extreme weather events" is a scare tactic and a joke metric.

[Endus]

Climate change =/= Increasing global temperatures

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Climate change is resulting in increasing global temperatures. That's really not up for debate; it's a recognized fact. Climate change is a host of connected issues, one of which is increased global temperatures. If those increasing temperatures drive more extreme weather events, then yes, it's due to climate change.

[Garnier Fructis]

"Extreme weather events" is a scare tactic and a joke metric.

This isn't even a response to the post I made. This isn't a response to anything.

Your responses always give the sense that you're just here to fuck with people, because I really don't think you're this dense.

[Ethenil]

Relevant xkcd.

[Eviscero]

Once I figure out how to make a computer do my job (mathematician) I'll be fine losing it, cause I'll be rich and famous as FUCK!

[nanook12]

1> Energy In Depth is explicitly run by the oil industry; it's a front group, not an independent study group; http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_in_Depth

2> The job growth the study in question identifies, which your article is falsely claiming as "short-term job growth", is 40-year jobs. In short, career-length employment. There's no such thing as "permanent jobs". 40-year employment is as good as it gets, really.

3> Most damning, they are misrepresenting the research. The "job loss" numbers they are citing aren't some hidden factor. When you try and figure out how many jobs are gained overall, you perform analysis to determine two things; how many new jobs will be created, and how many jobs will be lost. The difference tells you whether the net job growth will be a gain or a loss. They tried to claim, dishonestly, that the "loss" category in the Excel spreadsheet was "net loss", and it is not. It's the gross loss, which is offset by the significantly larger gains. The same way that having to pay rent doesn't mean you're $800 in the hole every month with no income; you can't take that one section of your budget spreadsheet and act like it's the entire budget, ignoring that you're making $50,000/year and thus nowhere close to going bankrupt.


What they did here was basically say "hey, if you ignore the much larger job gains, there will be some job losses. And they figured nobody else would dig through and Excel file to check. Well, I did. Energy In Depth are lying, here, because they're being paid to lie. It's pretty much that simple.

No they didn't lol. Look they illustrated net job loss just fine.

[PC2]

This isn't even a response to the post I made. This isn't a response to anything.

Your responses always give the sense that you're just here to fuck with people, because I really don't think you're this dense.

We are arguing about the specifics of climate change. I wanted everyone to agree on a concise statistically grounded definition for extreme weather. It could be standard deviation within yearly weather, X days of heavy rain per year, or whatever you are claiming it is. I object to vague statements like "climate change is probably gonna KILL a bunch of people eventually" and umbrella terms like extreme weather.

[Garnier Fructis]

We are arguing about the specifics of climate change. I wanted everyone to agree on a concise statistically grounded definition for extreme weather. It could be standard deviation within yearly weather, X days of heavy rain per year, or whatever you are claiming it is. I object to vague statements like "climate change is probably gonna KILL a bunch of people eventually" and umbrella terms like extreme weather.

If you want everyone to agree you can start by reading the stuff Endus linked instead of expecting us all to play your semantics games and agree with whatever ass-pulled arguments you make.

[starlord]

We are arguing about the specifics of climate change. I wanted everyone to agree on a concise statistically grounded definition for extreme weather. It could be standard deviation within yearly weather, X days of heavy rain per year, or whatever you are claiming it is. I object to vague statements like "climate change is probably gonna KILL a bunch of people eventually" and umbrella terms like extreme weather.

maybe these will help.

Understanding the Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-s...xtreme-weather
Trends in extreme weather and climate events: Issues related to modeling extremes in projections of future climate change
http://search.proquest.com/openview/...gsite=gscholar

[Varitok]

Not going to be any jobs if our planet is fucked up beyond all repair. No one gives a shit about the next generation or the future.

[Vargur]

Well, do we want technological progress and automation or do we want to keep our job?

Same question. It's more a matter of having the economy change and getting rid of certain capitalistic ideas. Such as the baseless assumption that someone's property and profits of a business inherently and undeniably belongs to them.

Controversial I know, a lot of people don't like change and any progress seems alien and weird to them.

Yep, the future is communism. Just not the one that already existed. We're taking baby steps.

[Endus]

No they didn't lol. Look they illustrated net job loss just fine.
<snip for space>

Yeah, the problem, again, is that those numbers are lies. The 3.9 million jobs lost (not "destroyed") is freely admitted in the study, but they demonstrate that there will be a growth of 5.9 million jobs to replace them. For a net increase of 2 million.

They claimed there was a column titled "Net Long Term Jobs". A simple Find command run on the entire workbook shows that this is a lie. No such column. Not even a misrepresentation; they literally made it up.

They made up bullshit numbers that aren't part of the actual study. Actually, that's not fair. I ran a search for the number itself, and it does exist. In two places. Both clearly identified as the total number of operations jobs, alone. Ignoring the 5.3 million construction jobs created alongside them.

There is no "net long term jobs" entry. The number they used was deliberately chosen and misrepresented to exclude the lion's share of job creation identified by the study.

It's a lie. A pretty darned blatant one, for anyone who bothers to check their source. You've fallen victim to blatant propaganda; next time, be a little more critical about your sources.


If anyone wants to double check this stuff, here's the source site for the spreadsheet in question; http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...ate-plans.html

And here's a direct link (since the page is a bit of a mess and it's easier than describing which link is the one you want, this will instantly download the spreadsheet file); http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j.../USStates.xlsx

You can verify everything I've said for yourself. Energy In Depth is expecting that people will be too lazy to double-check their source and see how blatantly they're lying about it, but if you bother to check, it's not exactly a subtle fraud.

[PC2]

Yep, the future is communism. Just not the one that already existed. We're taking baby steps.

You'll have to get rid of your state government first.

[BuckSparkles]

Can't wait until 50 years have passed and we are still here.

Eventually people will understand what bullshit it is.

Also in before the zealots charge forth and attack the heretic for dare doubting their faith.

[Orlong]

lol

EnergyInDepth - "Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009..." (https://energyindepth.org/about/); totally unbiased I'm sure. /eyeroll

If we actually tackle global warming, will people lose their jobs in the coal and oil industries? Absolutely.

Guess what else happens? Lots of new jobs in the new industries. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Geothermal, Wave, and battery technologies. Installations, maintenance, power plants, distribution systems, and new power stations to charge your vehicles.

Which are all jobs that someone who became a coal miner or oil rig worker right out of high school doesnt have the education or qualifications to do, so they DO lose their jobs and end up working for peanuts at a convenience store. All those solar, wind, nuclear, etc.. jobs go to young people fresh out of college.

[PC2]

Which are all jobs that someone who became a coal miner or oil rig worker right out of high school doesnt have the education or qualifications to do, so they DO lose their jobs and end up working for peanuts at a convenience store. All those solar, wind, nuclear, etc.. jobs go to young people fresh out of college.

The people setting up the end product probably dont need big college qualifications. On the R&D side, jobs going to STEM lords is a good thing that eventually helps everyone.