Climate Change Realists

[Boss]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

 

[PurpleOwl]

Flat earth realists, creationism realists, race realists.... you can't just add "realists" to the end of your whack job pseudo science and nonsense

 

[cnm]

I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that?

It seems you think if one can't think of a solution then a problem doesn't exist. That really is denial.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that?

It seems you think if one can't think of a solution then a problem doesn't exist. That really is denial.

But there IS a solution. Humans have to stop producing CO2. There is no other solution to the problem, IF the problem is what is claimed. "Denial" is thinking that carbon offset taxes or capitalist shakedown schemes are going to impress chemistry happening in the atmosphere. It's actually denying science and your own theory.

 

[eflatminor]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the fuck inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

 

[elektra]

If we did as you say, there is still one glaring problem. That is the solution creates a bigger problem. Building giant Wind Turbines increases manufacturing in the heavy industry sector which increases CO2. Building hundreds of miles of Solar Panels also uses requires an increase in heavy industry manufacturing, thus increasing CO2. How is it CO2 is a problem yet the solution proposed increases C02?

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Not so far off from my beliefs. Here's how you confront the "denier" label. GWarming Theory is more nuanced and complicated than just one question. A "realist" with some knowledge of the topic would ADMIT that man's emissions can and probably contributing to the measured Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature (GMAST) "anomaly". But at the SAME TIME -- there is no reason at all to accept the other GW hypotheses dealing with the hysterical, overstated CATASTROPHIC projections based on positive feedbacks, "tipping points", built in accelerations that CREATED a public policy issue in the 1st place.

If you take the BASIC science of the GH WITHOUT all that added speculation about the Earth destroying itself and runaway warming beyond relief --- there IS NO CRISIS. Never was -- probably never will be. And THAT'S the important question.

Don't get mired in arguments about the 0.6degC change in your lifetime. NOBODY KNOWS what the natural variability of the GMAST was 200 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago or 40,000 years ago. All of the GLOBAL proxy studies result in long term MEAN GMASTs with all of the peak deviations removed.

Direct the conversation to the observation that NONE of the speculation about ACCELERATED warming, runaway planet destruction and the melting of Antarctica --- has not been OBSERVED at all over the instrumentation period of our modern age. Because that's what is PUSHING the political policy agenda.

Point out that all early models and projections have been CONSISTENTLY revised downwards year after year since the hysteria was initiated. And critical numbers such as "climate sensitivities" have been ENORMOUSLY reduced over the past couple decades.

Eventually, my hope as a scientist is that the hysteria will be moderated, solutions can be found, and life will go on. And instead of pressure to PROVE the Earth is gonna destroy itself because of man emissions, we'll start doing better and more comprehensive "climate science"...

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that?

It seems you think if one can't think of a solution then a problem doesn't exist. That really is denial.

But there IS a solution. Humans have to stop producing CO2. There is no other solution to the problem, IF the problem is what is claimed. "Denial" is thinking that carbon offset taxes or capitalist shakedown schemes are going to impress chemistry happening in the atmosphere. It's actually denying science and your own theory.

100 new nuclear 4th gen nuclear plants would fix MOST of the problem. 40 to replace the ANCIENT ones where we're pushing our luck with ANY plant that old, and 60 new ones.

Wanna guess WHOM is against that rational science and engineering. Aint the serious environmentalists. Because the rational Enviro leaders have ENDORSED a nuclear solution.

It's those anti-science leftists who are MORE afraid of nuclear -- than they are of the possibility that the Earth is fixing to commit planetcide about a 2degC "trigger"..

 

[Boss]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Not so far off from my beliefs. Here's how you confront the "denier" label. GWarming Theory is more nuanced and complicated than just one question. A "realist" with some knowledge of the topic would ADMIT that man's emissions can and probably contributing to the measured Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature (GMAST) "anomaly". But at the SAME TIME -- there is no reason at all to accept the other GW hypotheses dealing with the hysterical, overstated CATASTROPHIC projections based on positive feedbacks, "tipping points", built in accelerations that CREATED a public policy issue in the 1st place.

If you take the BASIC science of the GH WITHOUT all that added speculation about the Earth destroying itself and runaway warming beyond relief --- there IS NO CRISIS. Never was -- probably never will be. And THAT'S the important question.

Don't get mired in arguments about the 0.6degC change in your lifetime. NOBODY KNOWS what the natural variability of the GMAST was 200 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago or 40,000 years ago. All of the GLOBAL proxy studies result in long term MEAN GMASTs with all of the peak deviations removed.

Direct the conversation to the observation that NONE of the speculation about ACCELERATED warming, runaway planet destruction and the melting of Antarctica --- has not been OBSERVED at all over the instrumentation period of our modern age. Because that's what is PUSHING the political policy agenda.

Point out that all early models and projections have been CONSISTENTLY revised downwards year after year since the hysteria was initiated. And critical numbers such as "climate sensitivities" have been ENORMOUSLY reduced over the past couple decades.

But even beyond all of this, which is very well articulated, the bottom line is, there isn't a plan to deal with what they claim is happening. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate because Exxon paid a $10k tax. If there were actually something man could do to change the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could discuss that.... but short of us all committing mass suicide, there's nothing we can do.

CO2 develops in the atmosphere naturally. In fact, nature churns out more in a year than man can produce in 50 years. A lot of it is absorbed into the ocean. A lot of it is used by plants through photosynthesis. And a certain amount is actually needed in the atmosphere so that we do have a greenhouse effect which prevents us from being an ice world.

I guess the glorious "97% of scientists" they boast about doesn't include botanical scientists because they will tell you that plant life, on average, thrives optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why many commercial greenhouses use CO2 to invigorate plants. So at 400 ppm, we are about 200 ppm below what nature seems to be happiest with.

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Not so far off from my beliefs. Here's how you confront the "denier" label. GWarming Theory is more nuanced and complicated than just one question. A "realist" with some knowledge of the topic would ADMIT that man's emissions can and probably contributing to the measured Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature (GMAST) "anomaly". But at the SAME TIME -- there is no reason at all to accept the other GW hypotheses dealing with the hysterical, overstated CATASTROPHIC projections based on positive feedbacks, "tipping points", built in accelerations that CREATED a public policy issue in the 1st place.

If you take the BASIC science of the GH WITHOUT all that added speculation about the Earth destroying itself and runaway warming beyond relief --- there IS NO CRISIS. Never was -- probably never will be. And THAT'S the important question.

Don't get mired in arguments about the 0.6degC change in your lifetime. NOBODY KNOWS what the natural variability of the GMAST was 200 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago or 40,000 years ago. All of the GLOBAL proxy studies result in long term MEAN GMASTs with all of the peak deviations removed.

Direct the conversation to the observation that NONE of the speculation about ACCELERATED warming, runaway planet destruction and the melting of Antarctica --- has not been OBSERVED at all over the instrumentation period of our modern age. Because that's what is PUSHING the political policy agenda.

Point out that all early models and projections have been CONSISTENTLY revised downwards year after year since the hysteria was initiated. And critical numbers such as "climate sensitivities" have been ENORMOUSLY reduced over the past couple decades.

But even beyond all of this, which is very well articulated, the bottom line is, there isn't a plan to deal with what they claim is happening. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate because Exxon paid a $10k tax. If there were actually something man could do to change the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could discuss that.... but short of us all committing mass suicide, there's nothing we can do.

CO2 develops in the atmosphere naturally. In fact, nature churns out more in a year than man can produce in 50 years. A lot of it is absorbed into the ocean. A lot of it is used by plants through photosynthesis. And a certain amount is actually needed in the atmosphere so that we do have a greenhouse effect which prevents us from being an ice world.

I guess the glorious "97% of scientists" they boast about doesn't include botanical scientists because they will tell you that plant life, on average, thrives optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why many commercial greenhouses use CO2 to invigorate plants. So at 400 ppm, we are about 200 ppm below what nature seems to be happiest with.

Well there ya go. Take my comments about a nuclear electricity grid and add to that the realization that a field of corn CLEARS the CO2 out of it's air every 5 minutes. The latter just points to the phony accounting that is used to tie MANKIND to CO2 production. We shouldn't be charged for domestic cattle -- because those animals REPLACED plains full of buffalo and other grazers. And we shouldn't be charged for most of the land use variation because the crops that thrive on it are pretty damn efficient at bringing carbon into the soil. YET -- when the numbers are quoted -- all of that phony accounting is included.

We COULD increase that "carbon sinking" ability pretty easily. More easily than changing our way of life or going back to the Dark Ages in land use. We could encourage BETTER SOIL management for farming. We could plant a better mix and rotation of crops and help 3rd world countries MAINTAIN their forests like we have learned to do.

 

[Boss]

I tell them all the time... you want to reduce man-made CO2 in the atmosphere? ...Plant a tree!

 

[flacaltenn]

I tell them all the time... you want to reduce man-made CO2 in the atmosphere? ...Plant a tree!

It's probably the law in some states, everytime a cow farts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

Yep.. Old rocks will be here in 2040 still telling us how we're gonna store the equivalent of 2000 nuclear bombs in "grid scale storage" to fix the HUGE shortcomings of wind and solar.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Okay... I am completely fed up with the moon bat leftist morons chortling "Climate Change Denier!" at me. I have never denied the climate changes. It should be obvious to anyone that climate changes all the time. Of course, their argument is that man is causing some kind of catastrophic climate change to happen that is going to destroy our ecosystem. They've got their studies and graphs and charts and propaganda to bombard you with, along with the repeated lies that 97% of all scientists agree with them and we're all just a bunch of muscle-headed morons who don't get it.

Here's the thing... I am not a denier, I am a realist. Let's just give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are correct about man's contribution to CO2 levels causing a warming effect that is going to ultimately destroy the ecosystem. I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that? Well, of course, we have to stop producing CO2. As long as we are producing any CO2, it will be contributing to this effect. If we reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, it's not going to change the effects. Even if we reduced our emissions by 70~80% it won't make chemistry behave differently. Chemistry doesn't care about your efforts and intentions. There will still be CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still cause the same thing to happen.

First of all, there is no plan for how we are going to reduce ANY level of CO2 substantially. The plans I keep hearing about are these "carbon offset taxes" which are levied on industries which produce high amounts of CO2. Again, chemistry doesn't really care how much tax you raise. The process is still going to happen. CO2 is still going to be released and it will still effect the ecosystem according to the Climate Change theories.

What it will take in order to reduce human emissions of CO2 enough to effectively change what they claim is happening, will plunge humanity into prehistoric living conditions, and even then, there will still be too many humans producing CO2 by burning things to stay warm and breathing. So... also, we need to reduce the number of people by 75~80%.

I'm not a climate change denier, I am a climate change realist. I understand that, even IF we are doing something detrimental by emitting carbon dioxide, there is little we can do about it to change the inevitable. If the ice caps are going to melt, well, we're just going to have to figure out a way to cope with that. If coastlines are flooded, we will have to move inland. We're not going to roll back industrialization to the stone age and exterminate most of our population. There is no genius tax scheme to punish industrialists that will change science and chemistry. I'm also not a science denier.

Not so far off from my beliefs. Here's how you confront the "denier" label. GWarming Theory is more nuanced and complicated than just one question. A "realist" with some knowledge of the topic would ADMIT that man's emissions can and probably contributing to the measured Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature (GMAST) "anomaly". But at the SAME TIME -- there is no reason at all to accept the other GW hypotheses dealing with the hysterical, overstated CATASTROPHIC projections based on positive feedbacks, "tipping points", built in accelerations that CREATED a public policy issue in the 1st place.

If you take the BASIC science of the GH WITHOUT all that added speculation about the Earth destroying itself and runaway warming beyond relief --- there IS NO CRISIS. Never was -- probably never will be. And THAT'S the important question.

Don't get mired in arguments about the 0.6degC change in your lifetime. NOBODY KNOWS what the natural variability of the GMAST was 200 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago or 40,000 years ago. All of the GLOBAL proxy studies result in long term MEAN GMASTs with all of the peak deviations removed.

Direct the conversation to the observation that NONE of the speculation about ACCELERATED warming, runaway planet destruction and the melting of Antarctica --- has not been OBSERVED at all over the instrumentation period of our modern age. Because that's what is PUSHING the political policy agenda.

Point out that all early models and projections have been CONSISTENTLY revised downwards year after year since the hysteria was initiated. And critical numbers such as "climate sensitivities" have been ENORMOUSLY reduced over the past couple decades.

But even beyond all of this, which is very well articulated, the bottom line is, there isn't a plan to deal with what they claim is happening. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate because Exxon paid a $10k tax. If there were actually something man could do to change the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could discuss that.... but short of us all committing mass suicide, there's nothing we can do.

CO2 develops in the atmosphere naturally. In fact, nature churns out more in a year than man can produce in 50 years. A lot of it is absorbed into the ocean. A lot of it is used by plants through photosynthesis. And a certain amount is actually needed in the atmosphere so that we do have a greenhouse effect which prevents us from being an ice world.

I guess the glorious "97% of scientists" they boast about doesn't include botanical scientists because they will tell you that plant life, on average, thrives optimally at around 600 ppm CO2. This is why many commercial greenhouses use CO2 to invigorate plants. So at 400 ppm, we are about 200 ppm below what nature seems to be happiest with.

One, The alarmists can not define what is man made or influenced. They simply can not define it because they refuse to admit what is most likely 99.8% natural sources.

Two, Every single "fix" is designed to remove personal freedoms and take wealth from the common man. They never address the real problem.

With just those two premises I can not and will not be a party to the AGW deception.

When they begin to be honest with themselves and others i might look at it again. The empirical evidence today shows no man induced influence as it is well within the boundaries of Natural Variation.

Its like claiming its the hottest year ever by 0.02 deg C when your error bars are +/- 0.2 deg C..

 

[Boss]

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

Total bunk. The prime source of CO2 emission from humans is breathing. You're only talking about energy production. But there are all kinds of ways humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. Any idea you come up with for alternative energy requires production and fabrication processes which produce CO2. With trillions of government dollars already invested in alternative energy sources, wind and solar account for a whopping 2% of our needs at present. You're nowhere near meeting our needs and you can't get there without producing CO2.

And let's be clear, ANY human emission of CO2 is too much, IF what you've claimed is happening is true. We have to completely eliminate ALL our contribution at once and then we have to pray that mother nature joins our effort and cooperates in reducing natural emissions as well. That's the only way to reduce the ppm currently in the atmosphere and reverse what is happening. So these stupid little ideas you have for reducing CO2 a little here and there, isn't going to impress chemistry and science.

Not to mention the fact that many countries are not going to convert their power grids because they can't afford to. So how are you going to force China and Russia to stop producing CO2? Or any of a hundred or so other developing nations? And again, how do you get around the fact that something as simple as producing concrete also produces massive amounts of CO2? How do you fabricate windmill blades, solar panels and battery casings without using plastics which require production that produces CO2?

You don't have an answer because you're a mindless idiot who has bought a bunch of leftist propaganda.

 

[elektra]

I don't believe that's true, but let's just assume that it is. What can we actually do about that?

It seems you think if one can't think of a solution then a problem doesn't exist. That really is denial.

But there IS a solution. Humans have to stop producing CO2. There is no other solution to the problem, IF the problem is what is claimed. "Denial" is thinking that carbon offset taxes or capitalist shakedown schemes are going to impress chemistry happening in the atmosphere. It's actually denying science and your own theory.

100 new nuclear 4th gen nuclear plants would fix MOST of the problem. 40 to replace the ANCIENT ones where we're pushing our luck with ANY plant that old, and 60 new ones.

Wanna guess WHOM is against that rational science and engineering. Aint the serious environmentalists. Because the rational Enviro leaders have ENDORSED a nuclear solution.

It's those anti-science leftists who are MORE afraid of nuclear -- than they are of the possibility that the Earth is fixing to commit planetcide about a 2degC "trigger"..

I would have to disagree that we are pushing our luck running older plants. There are many upgrades and modifications. The most recent modifications have been to the back-up power sources after the Fukishima disaster.

Other upgrade and modifications have been to the Steam Generators, one plant chemistry has been changed based on operating experience. Second, the Steam Generators themselves have been replaced in most of our pressurized water reactors. The older material that was prone to stuff like, "primary water stress corrosion cracking, or inter-granular attack, and corrosion has been replaced. Gone is the Inconel 600 replaced with Inconel 690. Thus far, there has not been one crack in Inconell 690! That is in over 20 years of operation.

Another big change was the replacement of many of our reactor heads, if not all of them. They suffered a failure of the penetration tubes the control rods run through. Seems the Carbon Steel head had a problem with Inconel tubes and the material used to weld them together.

Today our reactors can run 500 days straight without a hiccup.

On top of all this, the early problems were solved with new and innovative non-destructive testing techniques. Everything is tested, and that testing is backed up with destructive testing.

Maintenance of Reactors is World Class and does not get the credit it deserves. Our reactors are hardly ancient as you describe. With the replacement of the Steam Generators, replacement of the Reactor Heads, rebuilding and replacing of the Primary Coolant Pumps, and the new and improved Fuel Assemblies, our reactors are very modern and will perform for another 40 years.

You must remember, major components have been replaced with newer, better components, based on 50 years or more of operating experience.

Watts Bar 2, just came on line, it was a leftover from the 80's? Built with old Steam Generators with Inconel 600. TVA has already ordered replacement Steam Generators in anticipation that these crack. It will be interesting to see if changing the primary and secondary water chemistry is or was enough to prevent cracking. Either way, it will be at least another 40 years before we see the last of yesteryear's "ANCIENT" reactors, as you call them.

 

[elektra]

God, are you dumb bastard. Our prime emission of CO2 is from fossil fuel power plants. We can eliminate those with renewable energy, and renew it at a cheaper rate. Petrol fuels rank second. And we are already building hybrids that vastly improve mileage, and EV's that eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

We are presently building grid scale batteries in this nation that make solar and wind 24/7. We have the solar and wind potential to easily fulfill all our electrical energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Rather than posting your ignorance for all to see, why don't you do a bit of research on what the problem is, and the tools we already have to solve it.

If you eliminate all the fossil fuel plants how will you build electric cars, windmills, or solar panels? You can not build and maintain windmills or solar panels with the electricity from windmills or solar panels. You can build the batteries with the little energy from windmills and solar panels.

Yes, rather than posting from the point of view of the ignorant old crock, tell us what you will power heavy industry with! You can't melt iron ore with the electricity from a windmill or solar panel, your idea to build millions and millions and millions, that are even bigger, still requires all the energy being produced today my fossil fuels, and then some.

$44 trillion dollars, or more is what the democrats propose to spend, it will be hard for anyone to resist that kind of money. Hopefully our billionaire president is too greedy, as to take us down the path of bankruptcy and lunacy. $44 trillion!

 

[elektra]

Boss, I am impressed with your post. Almost nobody takes into account the materials the windmills and solar panels use. You can not make Concrete with the energy from a Solar Panel or Wind Mill. You can not make the blades of a Wind Turbine with the energy from a Wind Turbine, it is too weak and you need fossil fuels.

This mad idea has been burning up fossil fuels at a record pace and nobody admits it. Why should they, they all invest in fossil fuels and profit from their use.

 

[Old Rocks]

Even if the climate alarmists are 100% right, despite all failed past predictions and disagreements about tomorrow's weather much less over the next century, I would argue the worst possible solution to this impending cataclysm would be to put the problem into the hands of the federal government. Unless of course you're hoping to tackle climate change with the same outstanding professionalism and efficiency we see at the VA...or the post office.

So I tell you what, if you're just SURE Al Gore is correct, not back then, because you know, he wasn't, but now, then move the fuck inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Of course, we all know your bitching about climate isn't really about the weather, it's about power and central control, so I don't expect any proposal that doesn't involve involuntary compliance enforcement by armed government agents is going to fly for you wannbe hall monitors.

And whose hands do you suggest we put it in? Exxon's?