Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

Tell us about this cheap reliable energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

 

[PMZ]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff, that's problematic. Not breathing it.

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality, a very expensive proposition.

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.

Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization. They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may. They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place. Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.

You know, that's almost funny coming from you. the lefty enviro-whacko's insist that we reduce our standard of living to a "sustainable" level. They ignore the fact that sustainable societies all failed when they were the unfortunate victims of a natural disaster. For true civilization you require excess. The more excess you have the better the standard of living and the more civilization you get.

You see dear silly person when you are eking out your "sustainable" lifestyle you have no time for civilization... There is simply too much work involved in basic survival. Meanwhile, that which truly CAN wipe out our civilization (if not our very planet), namely an asteroid strike is ignored by you clowns...

There are only two choices. Sustainable and temporary. Why do you prefer temporary?

 

[Abraham3]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

Tell us about this cheap reliable energy.

I can get fuel right now for about 15 cents a mile and I don't need a windy or sunny day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

But she did.

PMZ is a mother?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

 

[PMZ]

The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm.

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

I didn't have anything to do with it. It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere.

 

[PMZ]

All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!

Tell us about this cheap reliable energy.

I can get fuel right now for about 15 cents a mile and I don't need a windy or sunny day.

But that's not sustainable. It's temporary.

 

[PMZ]

You made the claim, she didn't.

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask Mother Nature.

You made the claim, she didn't.

I didn't have anything to do with it. It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere.

So you're taking the level from a tiny sliver of Earth's history and claiming that is the "natural level". Got it.

 

[bripat9643]

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

Wrong. It's about maximizing the cost. Even if all the global warming abracadabra were true, the cost of coping with it would be a small fraction of $73 trillion. AGW is a scam designed to separate taxpayers from their money and give bureaucrats power to run every detail of our lives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell us about this cheap reliable energy.

I can get fuel right now for about 15 cents a mile and I don't need a windy or sunny day.

But that's not sustainable. It's temporary.

How temporary do you feel it is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

Yes, we must spend $70 trillion on green energy, because that minimizes our costs.

 

[PMZ]

You made the claim, she didn't.

I didn't have anything to do with it. It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere.

So you're taking the level from a tiny sliver of Earth's history and claiming that is the "natural level". Got it.

It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere. In other words, what we built civilization around assuming climate was long term.

 

[PMZ]

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

Yes, we must spend $70 trillion on green energy, because that minimizes our costs.

Again, tell us about this world from your imagination where temporary things are sustainable?

 

[PMZ]

I can get fuel right now for about 15 cents a mile and I don't need a windy or sunny day.

But that's not sustainable. It's temporary.

How temporary do you feel it is?

100 years or so.

 

[PMZ]

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

Wrong. It's about maximizing the cost. Even if all the global warming abracadabra were true, the cost of coping with it would be a small fraction of $73 trillion. AGW is a scam designed to separate taxpayers from their money and give bureaucrats power to run every detail of our lives.

What's your estimate of the cost of adapting civilization to a new climate, and what is it based on?

 

[Abraham3]

You made the claim, she didn't.

But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years. How's that CO2 look?

The Earth is only 10,000 years old?

No. Human civilization is - roughly. And as it has grown over the years, it has gained...momentum and inertia. The mass of our infrastructure has made it less and less and less and less flexible. Seven thousand years ago, a slow flood such as we'll be experiencing in the next century, would hardly draw any notice. People could carry everything they owned on their back. They'd just pick it all up and move. Now, not so much.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.

Wrong. It's about maximizing the cost. Even if all the global warming abracadabra were true, the cost of coping with it would be a small fraction of $73 trillion. AGW is a scam designed to separate taxpayers from their money and give bureaucrats power to run every detail of our lives.

What's your estimate of the cost of adapting civilization to a new climate, and what is it based on?

My estimate is that it would be less than zero because a warmer world is more suited to life on this planet. It also requires less energy to heat your homes in Northern climates. More rain would fall and more food would be produced.