A Balanced View of Climate Change

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Foxfyre is correct, I believe, that mankind's desire for creature comfort is a deadly matter, and I believe it is going to result in an apocalyptic event that is going to return us with a 50 to 75% death rate back to the steam and coal era. It is inevitable. In other words, I disagree with her in that we are indeed our own worst enemy.

Man cannot control his greed, and we all will pay for it.

 

[task0778]

All this is saying we have no idea what we are getting into with no plan an assuming it will all magically work out. It's completely self-centered and divorced from the totally of the biosphere.

The biosphere cannot quickly tech its way out of sudden changes. Adaptation in the natural world is an exceedingly long process and nowhere comparable to someone going down to their local Home Depot to put in a window mounted air conditioner. Humanity has lost sight of the one world it inhabits. This nonchalant attitude as to 'well, that species or crop we depend upon did not adapt and we now live in a world of increasing scarcity, no biggie economically' really says it all.

The exact same thing can be said and is true IMHO about trying to stop or mitigate climate change. We could spend untold trillions of dollars to combat climate change and not see a difference.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The exact same thing can be said and is true IMHO about trying to stop or mitigate climate change. We could spend untold trillions of dollars to combat climate change and not see a difference.

If you were a full-on doomer I would agree, but maybe you have infinite growth brainworms like Foxfyre so I dunno.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Using this as their threshold for when AC is needed, they modeled what it would cost to keep schools cool in the near future under a moderate warming scenario. Their answer: more than 13,700 public schools in the United States. that did not need air conditioning in 1970 need it today. Some have already installed it, some are working on it now and some can only dream of having enough money. The estimated cost of this huge investment exceeds $40 billion.

How many trillions do we need to spend on solar panels to save this $40 billion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People need more air conditioning, food and water. Tunnel vision.

How many more nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[task0778]

If you were a full-on doomer I would agree, but maybe you have infinite growth brainworms like Foxfyre so I dunno.

I am not a doomer and so far I have not been diagnosed with brainworms or any other mental disability. Such insinuations does nothing to advance or clarify your position though, and maybe I misunderstood what you mean when you said: "All this is saying we have no idea what we are getting into with no plan an assuming it will all magically work out. It's completely self-centered and divorced from the totally of the biosphere."

As far as I can tell, nobody on either side of the issue has any sort of realistic plan to deal with it that is cogent and effective. We probably should be looking at ideas that attack the problem from both ends, reducing whatever anthropogenic activities that cause climate change but also whatever adaptations we can make to deal with the problem, whether caused by mankind or not. Unfortunately, the issue has become so political and toxic that we can't or won't agree or accept any proposals that the other side develops. Trust in science has eroded, as it also has in journalism, academia, and of course politics. Who knows what the truth is anymore?

 

[Robert W]

For example, it is just a small temperature fluctuation between having hurricanes or not.

I would like to read the proof of that claim.

 

[Robert W]

I am not a doomer and so far I have not been diagnosed with brainworms or any other mental disability. Such insinuations does nothing to advance or clarify your position though, and maybe I misunderstood what you mean when you said: "All this is saying we have no idea what we are getting into with no plan an assuming it will all magically work out. It's completely self-centered and divorced from the totally of the biosphere."

As far as I can tell, nobody on either side of the issue has any sort of realistic plan to deal with it that is cogent and effective. We probably should be looking at ideas that attack the problem from both ends, reducing whatever anthropogenic activities that cause climate change but also whatever adaptations we can make to deal with the problem, whether caused by mankind or not. Unfortunately, the issue has become so political and toxic that we can't or won't agree or accept any proposals that the other side develops. Trust in science has eroded, as it also has in journalism, academia, and of course politics. Who knows what the truth is anymore?

Though they claim various damages due to warmer days, we do not read the proof they claim to know. Also they exhort us to change the climate knob. It is supposedly CO2. But they present no proof it is the one knob that changes climate. They ignore the vast number of knobs that nature has to offer.

 

[Crick]

Though they claim various damages due to warmer days, we do not read the proof they claim to know. Also they exhort us to change the climate knob. It is supposedly CO2. But they present no proof it is the one knob that changes climate. They ignore the vast number of knobs that nature has to offer.

Important lesson here Robert. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Climate science is a natural science. Don't demand proof, ask to see the EVIDENCE. Increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is the cause for almost (but not quite) all the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Here is a graph that has appeared in all six of the IPCC's assessment reports. It shows the various factors changing the Earth's temperatures by way of radiative effects: those that absorb energy and those that reflect it. With each new assessment report, the graph gets more and more accurate and provides more and more information. See what it says here about carbon dioxide compared to all the other factors. The latest graph now has three sections. In the upper left are the radiative forcing of the various factors; how many watts per square meter they add to the Earth's warming. The upper right hand shows how many degrees of warming or cooling, between 1750 and 2019, for which each factor is responsible. There is a further breakdown of aerosols as well. This copy is one I keep on my desktop but it is from the Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" from Working Group I of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report. No scientist is saying CO2 is the control knob. That is the sort of fluff one gets from newscasters.

 

[Robert W]

Important lesson here Robert. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Climate science is a natural science. Don't demand proof, ask to see the EVIDENCE. Increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is the cause for almost (but not quite) all the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Here is a graph that has appeared in all six of the IPCC's assessment reports. It shows the various factors changing the Earth's temperatures by way of radiative effects: those that absorb energy and those that reflect it. With each new assessment report, the graph gets more and more accurate and provides more and more information. See what it says here about carbon dioxide compared to all the other factors. The latest graph now has three sections. In the upper left are the radiative forcing of the various factors; how many watts per square meter they add to the Earth's warming. The upper right hand shows how many degrees of warming or cooling, between 1750 and 2019, for which each factor is responsible. There is a further breakdown of aerosols as well. This copy is one I keep on my desktop but it is from the Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" from Working Group I of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report. No scientist is saying CO2 is the control knob. That is the sort of fluff one gets from newscasters.

View attachment 958118

So few degrees, such alarm and such fuss. Sorry I do not believe we must be alarmed.

 

[Crick]

So few degrees, such alarm and such fuss. Sorry I do not believe we must be alarmed.

Why do you think all those scientists think we should be alarmed? That we all need to act as expeditiously as possible? What do you think you know that they do not?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

So few degrees, such alarm and such fuss. Sorry I do not believe we must be alarmed.

Every year hurricane season starts up with a few degrees change in temperature.

 

[Dagosa]

When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

You don’t counter science. You expand on it and increase your knowledge. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, do more and build on it using science.
The only alternative to science is making up shit.

 

[Crick]

When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

So, you think it's a bad idea for our governments to "follow the science". I'm going to have to disagre with you. Completely.

 

[Robert W]

Every year hurricane season starts up with a few degrees change in temperature.

The changes are minute per year. We are not in danger.

 

[Robert W]

So, you think it's a bad idea for our governments to "follow the science". I'm going to have to disagre with you. Completely.

Our Government is not following science.

 

[Robert W]

Why do you think all those scientists think we should be alarmed? That we all need to act as expeditiously as possible? What do you think you know that they do not?

They rake in millions of dollars promoting this fake scare.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you think it's a bad idea for our governments to "follow the science". I'm going to have to disagre with you. Completely.

I think it is betrayal of the people to follow bad science or made up science or pretend science or manipulated science for political purposes.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don’t counter science. You expand on it and increase your knowledge. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, do more and build on it using science.
The only alternative to science is making up shit.

Once a mind is closed, it is no longer science but dogma. Science welcomes all points of view, considers all possibilities, and never concludes there is nothing new to learn. It certainly does not shun or cancel those who question it. Once that starts happening we know we aren't dealing with scientists or science any longer but rather we are dealing with politicians with an agenda

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you think all those scientists think we should be alarmed?

Money for nothing, chicks for free!!!