Why we should listen to the 97%

[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?

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.

A "flood" where sea level increases by one foot in a hundred years won't even be noticed by anyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Temporary things like wind and sunshine?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

How temporary do you feel it is?

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

 

[Abraham3]

How temporary do you feel it is?

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

I think the obvious point here is that 15 years ago you might have worked on improving your personal knowledge base.

You keep coming back with questions, and I can see the effort this is taking, but I don't think you've quite got a handle on the Socratic method.

But tell us, when do YOU think petroleum will run out? And when I say run out, I mean when will it become so costly to obtain that we will stop burning it. Have you ever thought of the materials we will lose when the wells run dry; the many, many everyday items that are actually made from petroleum? Thirty five years ago one of my college professors railed on the waste of burning the stuff. Plastics. Drugs. Lubricants. A thousand chemicals used in a thousand-thousand different industrial processes. Alternative energy is easy to find. It pours from the sky in an endless stream. What are we going to do when we've got nothing with which to wrap up our leftovers or kill the front lawn's cinch bugs and changing the oil in our shiny new 2120 Lexus involves the sacrificial rendering of four fat pigs?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC joins the Deniers

 

[PMZ]

How temporary do you feel it is?

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

 

[PMZ]

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?

Temporary things like wind and sunshine?

Have you heard that we're running out of wind and sunshine?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Actually, what you describe is conservative progress. No civilization, no government, no education, no energy, no laws, only wandering warring tribes. But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives, and low taxes.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Not without water. Of course, perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better.

Wait. We're out of places too.

 

[bripat9643]

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

forever of you try to base the replacement on wind power and solar.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not without water. Of course, perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better.

Wait. We're out of places too.

You have no evidence that the rain would move. The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread. Famines were almost unheard of. After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Actually, what you describe is conservative progress. No civilization, no government, no education, no energy, no laws, only wandering warring tribes. But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives, and low taxes.

The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government. The two things are opposites, not synonyms.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Not without water. Of course, perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better.

Wait. We're out of places too.

You have no evidence that the rain would move. The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread. Famines were almost unheard of. After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.

Tell the people in flooded Colorado, or burning California, or the parched plains that we have no evidence that the rain is moving.

 

[PMZ]

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

forever of you try to base the replacement on wind power and solar.

They are part of the solution. Just like hydro, nuclear and biomass.

However you don't have to worry about the solution. Smart people will take care of you.

 

[bripat9643]

Not without water. Of course, perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better.

Wait. We're out of places too.

You have no evidence that the rain would move. The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread. Famines were almost unheard of. After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.

Tell the people in flooded Colorado, or burning California, or the parched plains that we have no evidence that the rain is moving.

Weren't you one of the AGW retards that just got done saying single extreme weather events are not evidence of global warming?

 

[bripat9643]

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

forever of you try to base the replacement on wind power and solar.

They are part of the solution. Just like hydro, nuclear and biomass.

However you don't have to worry about the solution. Smart people will take care of you.

ROFL! They will never be part of the solution. Dumb people put all their chips on wind, solar and biomass. Furthermore, wind and solar are not a replacement for oil. Batteries will never be a good substitute for gasoline.

 

[PMZ]

You have no evidence that the rain would move. The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread. Famines were almost unheard of. After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.

Tell the people in flooded Colorado, or burning California, or the parched plains that we have no evidence that the rain is moving.

Weren't you one of the AGW retards that just got done saying single extreme weather events are not evidence of global warming?

Look up random vs assignable cause variability. You'll be amazed at what you don't know. Or, if not, you'll at least have confirmation of the extent of your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome status.

 

[PMZ]

forever of you try to base the replacement on wind power and solar.

They are part of the solution. Just like hydro, nuclear and biomass.

However you don't have to worry about the solution. Smart people will take care of you.

ROFL! They will never be part of the solution. Dumb people put all their chips on wind, solar and biomass. Furthermore, wind and solar are not a replacement for oil. Batteries will never be a good substitute for gasoline.

This is exactly why nobody will consult you on energy issues. You have less than zero technological experience. The problem is so far beyond you that every time you post, solutions get farther away.

What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply, with no consequences of their use.

Talk about a fantasy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

100 years or so.

We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?

How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?

If the government mandates changes, it will take twice as long and cost three times as much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Temporary things like wind and sunshine?

Have you heard that we're running out of wind and sunshine?

No, but I have heard that the wind doesn't blow all the time and that sunshine is interrupted by something called night time.