The real climate declaration

[Father Heathen]

I'm sick and tired of all this climate change fear mongering,

I'm sick and tired of all this scientific illiteracy, willful ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty. What kind of dopes allow themselves to be manipulated by lobbyists with an obvious agenda?

 

[Valjean]

So, yes, it's nice in theory for the scientists to get together and say "we should use less fossil fuels." I agree, but it's easier said than done. And "eat less meat"? People won't go along with that.

If things get bad enough; if people eventually perceive an existential threat, I expect they'd accede to rationing and various other restrictions. Cf: WWII rationing.
China successfully instituted a one child policy. If a real emergency is perceived, do you think other governments would hesitate to do the same?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try, and I don't really want to come off as too cynical or defeatist here. But we're probably screwed one way or the other anyway. One reason I may not worry so much about climate change is that we'll probably go up in a nuclear inferno before climate change starts to really take its toll.

Good point. It only took a couple years of drought to send climate refugees flooding into middle eastern cities, overwhelming infrastructure and precipitating the Arab Spring and subsequent wars and refugee "invasions" into Europe.
How much worse when the problem becomes worldwide, with a billion or so refugees? I can see that precipitating a nuclear exchange, no problem.

But at least the cockroaches will survive - and who knows? In a few million years, they may evolve into an intelligent, sentient lifeform - far more intelligent than humans. So, I do have high hopes for the planet's long-term future. I think the planet Earth will survive this, even if humans don't.

 

[sun rise]

We're the kind of species from a collective standpoint that just has to let the disasters hit before reacting.

The problem is wolf was cried so many times that future warnings are just cliche.

Sadly I have to agree with you quite a bit for older folk.

But I'm seeing that younger people are more alive to the problem so people are waking up.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sick and tired of all this scientific illiteracy, willful ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty. What kind of dopes allow themselves to be manipulated by lobbyists with an obvious agenda?

Politicians? The general public?

 

[Salvador]

I'm sick and tired of all this scientific illiteracy, willful ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty. What kind of dopes allow themselves to be manipulated by lobbyists with an obvious agenda?

Scientists have never claimed the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Scientists have never claimed the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

So if a time limit wasn't being used, would you be more supportive of environmental efforts?

 

[Valjean]

Sadly I have to agree with you quite a bit for older folk.

But I'm seeing that younger people are more alive to the problem so people are waking up.

Hey! Too broad a brush here!
I'm an older folk; an unreconstructed Hippie.
I'm one of the boomers who worked or demonstrated against the war, for civil rights, for womens' rights, for environmental justice. I find myself becoming more radical with each passing year.

 

[Valjean]

Scientists have never claimed the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

True, but their near future predictions are becoming increasingly dire.
This is why we shouldn't look to politicians to understand scientific issues.

 

[Stevicus]

If things get bad enough; if people eventually perceive an existential threat, I expect they'd accede to rationing and various other restrictions. Cf: WWII rationing.
China successfully instituted a one child policy. If a real emergency is perceived, do you think other governments would hesitate to do the same?

But would people actually go along with it? If they see the top 1% still consuming and living in the lap of luxury while everyone else is told they must sacrifice, then it probably won't work. (And in comparing it to WW2, the top 1% would most certainly balk at wage and price controls, just as they do now.)

Do you think the world as a whole would go along with a one child policy? At this point, I don't think even a policy disallowing tax exemptions for children would fly in this political climate. They should actually raise taxes for each child, rather than exempting them. But such a proposal would never be accepted. It would have to be forced on people, and that's where it gets far more complicated.

Good point. It only took a couple years of drought to send climate refugees flooding into middle eastern cities, overwhelming infrastructure and precipitating the Arab Spring and subsequent wars and refugee "invasions" into Europe.

I don't think it was just because of drought.

How much worse when the problem becomes worldwide, with a billion or so refugees? I can see that precipitating a nuclear exchange, no problem.

I remember such predictions being made when I was a kid, where the future was presented as a shrinking group of "haves" versus world-wide multitudes of "have nots." This was considered likely, even without considering the ramifications of climate change.

I was thinking of something more like this:

 

[Salvador]

So if a time limit wasn't being used, would you be more supportive of environmental efforts?

I've been environmentally friendly even before AOC's fear mongering baseless claim that the world is going end in twelve years if nothing were to be done about climate change. My electric powered car's battery is charged by the Clinton Nuclear Power station. I also recycle rather than dispose of my used paper, glass, plastic, and metal products. I've put a smaller than average carbon footprint on our precious mother Earth. Are you as environmentally friendly as me?

 

[Salvador]

True, but their near future predictions are becoming increasingly dire.
This is why we shouldn't look to politicians to understand scientific issues.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 hasn't significantly impacted global temperatures on average.

Carbon emissions have had a minuscule impact on climate change; whereas, the Green New Deal's impact on climate change would be too insignificant in order to justify its cost.

As I've previously noted, there were 4,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1)

Compared to current levels of atmospheric CO2, there was approximately ten times as much atmospheric carbon dioxide along with an abundance of life increasing in population on Earth millions of years ago. Plants need CO2 to live. Hence, carbon dioxide helps crops grow.

A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2))

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Cold weather kills more Americans than hot weather. So a bit of global warming from carbon emissions might be more beneficial for the United States of America as well as perhaps some other parts of the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ta-show/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c6afd228d8c

I'd now also would like to take this opportunity to mention that climate change models have failed to accurately predict climate change. Hence, scientists yet have a lot to learn about climate change. its causes as well as its environmental impact.

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist) | Tesla

The Green Energy Deal is a farce, because this unrealistically expects our nation to be totally powered with renewable energy within 10 years; that'd mean replacing 88 percent of our current energy production that's supplied from non-renewable sources of energy with renewable sources of energy like solar power and wind mills. I currently drive a Tesla electric powered car whose electric energy comes from nuclear power; half the electricity in my state of Illinois comes from nuclear energy. There's not enough space in urban areas for solar panels to supply our state's energy needs nor could wind-mill farms store enough electricity for providing our state's energy needs. So then, the Green Energy Deal fails to supply energy for electric cars that this deal mandates in replacement of cars powered by fossil fuel.

As I've previously noted, if atmospheric carbon dioxide around Earth were to become a grave concern, then please let's just simply have this CO2 transported to Mars. Transporting CO2 and other greenhouse gases from Earth to Mars might be more beneficial than the Green New Deal for Americans as well as for humanity's future on Earth and Mars.

 

[Valjean]

But would people actually go along with it? If they see the top 1% still consuming and living in the lap of luxury while everyone else is told they must sacrifice, then it probably won't work. (And in comparing it to WW2, the top 1% would most certainly balk at wage and price controls, just as they do now.)

Do you think the world as a whole would go along with a one child policy? At this point, I don't think even a policy disallowing tax exemptions for children would fly in this political climate. They should actually raise taxes for each child, rather than exempting them. But such a proposal would never be accepted. It would have to be forced on people, and that's where it gets far more complicated.

I think



I don't think it was just because of drought.



I remember such predictions being made when I was a kid, where the future was presented as a shrinking group of "haves" versus world-wide multitudes of "have nots." This was considered likely, even without considering the ramifications of climate change.



I was thinking of something more like this:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 hasn't significantly impacted global temperatures on average.

Carbon emissions have had a minuscule impact on climate change; whereas, the Green New Deal's impact on climate change would be too insignificant in order to justify its cost.

As I've previously noted, there were 4,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1)

Compared to current levels of atmospheric CO2, there was approximately ten times as much atmospheric carbon dioxide along with an abundance of life increasing in population on Earth millions of years ago. Plants need CO2 to live. Hence, carbon dioxide helps crops grow.

A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2))

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Cold weather kills more Americans than hot weather. So a bit of global warming from carbon emissions might be more beneficial for the United States of America as well as perhaps some other parts of the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ta-show/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c6afd228d8c

I'd now also would like to take this opportunity to mention that climate change models have failed to accurately predict climate change. Hence, scientists yet have a lot to learn about climate change. its causes as well as its environmental impact.

IPCC admits that climate models fail (Professor Stein Storli Bergmark, physicist) | Tesla

The Green Energy Deal is a farce, because this unrealistically expects our nation to be totally powered with renewable energy within 10 years; that'd mean replacing 88 percent of our current energy production that's supplied from non-renewable sources of energy with renewable sources of energy like solar power and wind mills. I currently drive a Tesla electric powered car whose electric energy comes from nuclear power; half the electricity in my state of Illinois comes from nuclear energy. There's not enough space in urban areas for solar panels to supply our state's energy needs nor could wind-mill farms store enough electricity for providing our state's energy needs. So then, the Green Energy Deal fails to supply energy for electric cars that this deal mandates in replacement of cars powered by fossil fuel.

As I've previously noted, if atmospheric carbon dioxide around Earth were to become a grave concern, then please let's just simply have this CO2 transported to Mars. Transporting CO2 and other greenhouse gases from Earth to Mars might be more beneficial than the Green New Deal for Americans as well as for humanity's future on Earth and Mars.

• 
  
  

 

[Valjean]

I don't think it was just because of drought.

Arab spring, drought and climate change fuel migration boom
Chinese drought, bread and the Arab Spring - ScienceDirect

 

[Father Heathen]

Scientists have never claimed the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

I never said they did. AOC isn't a scientist, so how is she relevant?

 

[Salvador]

I never said they did. AOC isn't a scientist, so how is she relevant?

I hope you're right that she's irrelevant, we agree then that she and anybody who agrees with her Green New Deal should be voted out of Congress next year. The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.4 °C over the past 100 years. This is far less than experts predicted.

 

[metis]

It's "amazing" that some here believe that the overwhelming number of climate scientists who well know we are in a dangerous trend of global warming are supposedly so ignorant and/or so dishonest, thus preferring to believe in right-wing politicians on this.

 

[Salvador]

It's "amazing" that some here believe that the overwhelming number of climate scientists who well know we are in a dangerous trend of global warming are supposedly so ignorant and/or so dishonest, thus preferring to believe in right-wing politicians on this.

Past global warming models have way overestimated increases in global temperatures, so right-wing ideologists like me have been closer to the truth about climate change than the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of most global warming models.

 

[Yerda]

Past global warming models have way overestimated increases in global temperatures, so right-wing ideologists like me have been closer to the truth about climate change than the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of most global warming models.

Yes, you know more than the scientific community.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Past global warming models have way overestimated increases in global temperatures, so right-wing ideologists like me have been closer to the truth about climate change than the accuracy of predictions made on the basis of most global warming models.

No, some models over estimated warming. Some models underestimated warming. For the most part they have been rather accurate:

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief