According to David I am ignorant, gullible and spout bullshit. Maybe he's right, who knows. But one of the problems I have with global alarmists (at least the ones we see in the news) is their reluctance to take into consideration human ingenuity. What we see in the news is "the sky is falling." At one time we were told the world would be a boiling cauldron by now. The unceasing chicken little attitude as inured me to the hype. But mainly I resent the attitude that humans are stupid and helpless, and the government needs to step in an take control of the situation, the government is the only thing standing between civilization and extinction, as if the government isn't comprised of human beings (who, apparently, have avoided the stupidity that has infected the rest of us). The denial that humans have great capacity to bend the environment to our will, not the other way around. When there are floods humans build dams. When there is drought humans invent irrigation. When there are plagues humans develop vaccines. You get the picture. Rather than conceding that humans will almost certainly develop ways to cope with global warming, encouraging inventive minds to look for creative ways to address the problem without resorting to regression of civilization, the global alarmists(the ones in the news) are frothing at the mouth pessimists. It should come as no surprise to anyone why their alarmism has begun to fall on deaf ears.
Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
It certainly increases the growing seasons. Also, more people die as a result of cold weather than hot.
Humans also dump toxic waste where it shouldn’t be, pollute water sources, etc., etc.
As ingenious and inventive as we are, humans still suck at cleaning up messes made by themselves.
According to the same crowd, we were supposed to be wearing hazmat suits at this point in human history, because there was no doubt the harmful rays of the sun would be too dangerous to humanity.
I played golf this morning. No hat or sunscreen.
I played golf this morning. No hat or sunscreen.
You know that's because of global CFC bans right?
Would any of you object to requiring the government to be carbon neutral?
What about quadrupling research grants for renewable energy and energy efficiency?
What about quadrupling research grants for renewable energy and energy efficiency?
"We would forget how to irrigate" is either ignorant or bullshit. Period. If it is simply a matter of "digging a deeper well" then why haven't we mastered growing corn in the Sahara?
If you don't hear the story of innovation in the face of climate change then you aren't paying attention. Entire companies exist for that very reason, maybe you have heard of a few of them - say Tesla.
Do you know what DARPA is? Do you think the DOE should be funding basic research grants on sustainable energy?
Actually it doesn't. When a given region becomes hotter at its peak and drier overall the net production for that region goes down not up.
Hard to get a solid number on it, but I think it is in the 9 figures range.
You presume some grand monolith. A climate scientist is just that a climate scientist, they are not policy makers, they are not politicians, they are not economists. I could give a shit as to what a climate scientist WANTS us to do, I care about what the science says is happening and the leading candidates for changing/ameliorating the problem.
I listen largely to the economists on this issue. They mostly have a single page solution - you might call it cap and trade, a carbon tax, or whatever. The solution is to create economic incentives to move away from carbon emitting energy sources. The dreaded redistribution of income is a result - you would indeed take money from certain segments of the economy and via tax reductions in other areas effectively reward others.
Google is your friend. DOE was making higher than market returns on their portfolio last I checked...
I don’t associate with international criminal syndicates
I rest my case. The world is coming to an end. There have never been wildfires in the entire history of the earth until now. It's all mankind's fault. Woe is me, woe is me!
You realize when you're presented with evidence you don't like you default to spinning it in an absurd way? You do this frequently.
Haha whoa baby that’s a good one coming from you papa toon.
No. There's nothing on earth that can make it replicate Venus unless something like a really large asteroid impacted earth, and then I'm not sure what would exactly would happen besides a big explosion.
Venus has an atmospheric pressure of about 93 times that of earth (93MPa). It's thought that in the early formation of Venus, the pressure was even much greater and the liquid covering the surface was likely supercritical carbon dioxide, which means it existed in a liquid and a gas state at the same time. Venus also doesn't have a magnetic field. Solar winds likely removed many of the other atmospheric elements long ago, including water.
Earth is way too different to become Venus. CO2 has always been the predominant atmospheric gas on Venus. Earth's CO2 is incredibly negligible in comparison.
Interesting.
Just to be clear. Your stance is that it is not possible for earth to become hotter than it currently is, due to environmental changes brought on by industrialization.
I'm saying earth cannot become Venus.
Of course the earth can get warmer just as it can become much colder. But is that really due to industrialization? The earth's climate has never been static. Too many variables for that. The climate didn't suddenly start changing when industrialization occurred.
Medic, It is pretty obvious that you believe that man made global warming is real, so why do you always troll these discussions in the ways that you do?
I get that you think that people are too alarmist and disagree with statist solutions, but couldn't you drive the discussion in a more measured pragmatic direction rather than aiming for maximum antagonization?
Huh? Been and I are having a conversation about an article he read.
Huh X 2? How exactly am I trying to antagonize Been?
I didn't mean in a literal sense. I meant that I don't think humans can cause enough "warming" to make earth uninhabitable.
I agree that humans can't make the planet completely uninhabitable. But, what if "warming" leads to stresses (such as famine, overcrowding, refugees looking for a safe haven), which ultimately result in mass genocide/nuclear war, or something else apocalyptic?
Maybe let Been make that decision? I'm pretty sure he doesn't see it that way.
We have plenty of those without the help of carbon emissions, minus the nuclear war at this point. People are assholes regardless of climate.
Will someone use the climate as an excuse to do evil crap? Probably at some point whether it gets warmer or colder or not.
I guess I would sum up by saying that humans won't make Earth uninhabitable due to climate change, but it seem likely we will make it less habitable via climate change (unless a solution is invented). It is only a matter of time. JMO.
Plenty of folks feel that way. I just hate the senseless alarmism. I'm the same way about severe weather. David Screamer Payne and Mike Morgasms make me feel homicidal.
I'm not convinced climate change is as convenient as sounds. It only takes one wrong data point to make the "predictions" whacky, and there's a whole lot of data points, probably including some we don't currently know enough about to know.
Where to begin. You’re correct that I don’t pay much attention to the climate scandal any more than any other scandal/crisis du jour. With a wife, 2 grown children, a daughter-in-law, a son-in-law, two granddaughters that are the light of my life, a business to run, and employees that take up more time than they should, not to mention trying to keep up with all things OSU sports, I’m a little busy living my life.
So when it comes to the climate alarmists all I have time for is to listen to things like the nightly news. And the things I hear or read are presented to me as coming from climate scientists. I hear things like the famous hockey stick are manipulated, e-mails discuss how to trick the public; I read something about made up temperatures in Australia. Lots of other things that make me wonder who is the gullible one. All those things are supposedly the workings of climate scientists. So forgive me if I listen with a jaundiced ear.
I am not the least bit surprised to learn that there are people seeking solutions. I’m not sure Tesla is the one you should point to, when pointing it to me. I’m not real big on publicity hounds that have learned how to bilk the American taxpayer for millions (or is it billions) of dollars, and then can’t produce what has been promised.
But your point is well taken. I have not denied that people are not looking for creative solutions. And, as for me, I am certain someone will find something within our 100 year window that will eliminate the problem. Someone that is thinking outside the norm. Someone who is not looking to rob Peter to pay Paul. Someone that discovers how to evaporate the dreaded CO2 that will destroy the planet.
But the truth is we are not shown any of those people on the news. We are shown the typical angry statist that is upset people are not following his advice and so he is looking for a way to turn his advice into an order. I would like to know more about any exciting breakthroughs. But not so much that I’m willing to sacrifice one second with the important things in my life.
There. I’ve had my say. You are welcome to the last word.
