A Balanced View of Climate Change

[ReinyDays]

I've learned that it is impossible to win an argument with a fanatic or those so dishonest they won't argue the actual issue. But you can render the fanatics and dishonest harmless with good government, good leadership, good policy, good laws that are enforced.

I believe that is true when it comes to the climate religionists too.

There are better reasons to curtail our dependence on fossil fuels ... it's Oil Money funding Hamas ...

 

[Foxfyre]

There are better reasons to curtail our dependence on fossil fuels ... it's Oil Money funding Hamas ...

Curtailing our dependence on fossil fuels will not make one whit bit of difference in whatever funds Hamas.

 

[task0778]

It makes no sense to spend untold gobs of money on unproven projects and ideas that no one knows what the benefits will be relative to the cost. Like everything else, we are lied to about the cost (underestimated) and also the benefits (overestimated). The truth is always hidden from us. Money and politics, that's what it's all about.

 

[task0778]

'Constructively adapt to climate change' without citing any of the consequences to which we are to constructively adapt. Kind of a glaring omission if we're supposed to have any realistic discussion. Nevermind that because the only thing that matters apparently is having enough money to pay for the consequences.

It's not just about the consequences but also the benefits gained. I see it as a 3-edged triangle: how much will a given solution cost, what will the consequences be if it's enacted, and what difference (if any) will it make.

 

[ReinyDays]

Curtailing our dependence on fossil fuels will not make one whit bit of difference in whatever funds Hamas.

Do you not follow the news? ... Iran is funding Hamas ... do you think Iran is rich because of her corn production? ... they're rich because they sell oil ...

Why bother advocating enforcement of existing laws and then just poo-poo enforcing existing laws ... ISIS sells oil through Turkey ... Russia sells oil through Europe ... Canadians sell oil through the United States ... I'm beginning to think enforcing existing laws isn't really all that important to you ...

Is the only "balanced approach" to this matter your own? ...

I've never seen a house blow up because of hydro-electricity ...

 

[ReinyDays]

It's not just about the consequences but also the benefits gained. I see it as a 3-edged triangle: how much will a given solution cost, what will the consequences be if it's enacted, and what difference (if any) will it make.

Don't forget Free Market ... if oil is cheap, burn it ... if not, then don't ... easy peasy ... think with your wallet ...

 

[EMH]

The only "balanced approach" to Earth climate change is to

CORRECTLY DIAGNOSE WHAT CAUSES IT AND WHAT DOES NOT

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you not follow the news? ... Iran is funding Hamas ... do you think Iran is rich because of her corn production? ... they're rich because they sell oil ...

Why bother advocating enforcement of existing laws and then just poo-poo enforcing existing laws ... ISIS sells oil through Turkey ... Russia sells oil through Europe ... Canadians sell oil through the United States ... I'm beginning to think enforcing existing laws isn't really all that important to you ...

Is the only "balanced approach" to this matter your own? ...

I've never seen a house blow up because of hydro-electricity ...

And you think the green energy laws, rules, regulations, trillions of dollars spent by the peaceful world are going to change that?

 

[Foxfyre]

'Constructively adapt to climate change' without citing any of the consequences to which we are to constructively adapt. Kind of a glaring omission if we're supposed to have any realistic discussion. Nevermind that because the only thing that matters apparently is having enough money to pay for the consequences.

I think the point of the OP was to illustrate that the Armageddon of climate change, the catastrophe they scare school children with, is greatly overhyped as to the reality of the situation. And the consequences (cost) of global warming if it continues into the next century will be HUGELY less than what they are expending to futilely try to stop it.

Again the money and effort would be far more constructively spent by researching and developing ways for humankind to adapt to the changing climate. And that would require no one to give up so many liberties, choices, options, opportunities.

 

[EMH]

I think the point of the OP was to illustrate that the Armageddon of climate change, the catastrophe they scare school children with, is greatly overhyped as to the reality of the situation. And the consequences (cost) of global warming if it continues into the next century will be HUGELY less than what they are expending to futilely try to stop it.

Again the money and effort would be far more constructively spent by researching and developing ways for humankind to adapt to the changing climate. And that would require no one to give up so many liberties, choices, options, opportunities.

Even more important is the truth of the DATA, that showed that increasing atmospheric Co2 does NOTHING....

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons. For more than 3 decades of increasing atmospheric Co2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.




until FUDGED in 2005 with laughable BS excuses that do not hold up to a minimal amount of questioning....


Co2 DOES NOTHING

WE SHOULD DO NOTHING TO CONSTRAIN ATMOSPHERIC Co2 since increasing Co2 DOES NOT WARM THE ATMOSPHERE


BALANCED APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE = ZEROING OUT THE Co2 FRAUD and OFFING ALL THE TREASONOUS LIARS BEHIND IT

 

[Matted Joybeard]

I think the point of the OP was to illustrate that the Armageddon of climate change, the catastrophe they scare school children with, is greatly overhyped as to the reality of the situation. And the consequences (cost) of global warming if it continues into the next century will be HUGELY less than what they are expending to futilely try to stop it.

Again the money and effort would be far more constructively spent by researching and developing ways for humankind to adapt to the changing climate. And that would require no one to give up so many liberties, choices, options, opportunities.

The OP is thoroughly vague. There's no concrete mention of consequences to which we must 'constructively adapt'. It places total faith that magic tech and free market solutions will solve what exactly?

 

[task0778]

There's no concrete mention of consequences to which we must 'constructively adapt'.

Of course there isn't. That's because there is absolutely NOTHING that is 'concrete' when it comes to climate change. We can look backward as far back as we want to, but that cannot tell us anything 'concrete' about the next 50 or 100 years. Did we learn nothing about all of the hockey stick graphs and projections of coming disaster that never happened? There is nothing 'concrete' about how much anthropogenic factors affect the climate, it's all guesswork and opinions. And there is nothing 'concrete' about what we do about it, how much any solution will cost, what effect it with have on humanity, and how much difference it will make vis-a-vis climate change. None of it is 'concrete'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even more important is the truth of the DATA, that showed that increasing atmospheric Co2 does NOTHING....

We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons. For more than 3 decades of increasing atmospheric Co2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.




until FUDGED in 2005 with laughable BS excuses that do not hold up to a minimal amount of questioning....


Co2 DOES NOTHING

WE SHOULD DO NOTHING TO CONSTRAIN ATMOSPHERIC Co2 since increasing Co2 DOES NOT WARM THE ATMOSPHERE


BALANCED APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE = ZEROING OUT THE Co2 FRAUD and OFFING ALL THE TREASONOUS LIARS BEHIND IT

I accept the prevailing scientific view that the Earth is warming as it always does until we enter another inevitable ice age. I don't know how much if any that human activity has increased that but I think most scientist agree that when you add seven billion people to the equation, it will have at least some affect on their immediate environment.

And if global temperatures do increase by 2 degrees centigrade by the end of the century there could be some environmental negative effects from that. But as the OP emphasizes, it is hardly the catastrophic threat the environmental alarmists would have us believe.

And I believe absolutely none....and I do believe none...of the even most draconian green energy initiatives we are forced to endure world wide will have made one whit's difference in what happens.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

'Some effect' is a massive understatement.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Of course there isn't. That's because there is absolutely NOTHING that is 'concrete' when it comes to climate change. We can look backward as far back as we want to, but that cannot tell us anything 'concrete' about the next 50 or 100 years. Did we learn nothing about all of the hockey stick graphs and projections of coming disaster that never happened? There is nothing 'concrete' about how much anthropogenic factors affect the climate, it's all guesswork and opinions. And there is nothing 'concrete' about what we do about it, how much any solution will cost, what effect it with have on humanity, and how much difference it will make vis-a-vis climate change. None of it is 'concrete'.

'We cannot know anything' is setting the stage for when things are going off the rails and when you ask people in charge of policy or solutions they can cop out with 'how could we have known?'

 

[task0778]

'We cannot know anything' is setting the stage for when things are going off the rails and when you ask people in charge of policy or solutions they can cop out with 'how could we have known?'

As opposed to the time-honored democrat solution which is throw tons of money at the problem, enrich their supporters, and get re-elected but solve nothing.

It is dumbshit stupid to spend trillions of dollars not knowing if it'll do any good.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.

Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'

Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

UK - In the family tree, one family member got ran over by a horse and cart, never mind a car. Even when the first cars came out, a person with a red flag walked Infront of the car. Accidents and deaths still happened.

Many things on the planet belch out co2 and other greenhouse gases, many processes and organisms absorb such things. Co2 was many thousands ppm millions of years ago, foliage flourished that much, it supported enormous reptiles called dinosaurs. Where did the co2 go? Crustaceans absorbed loads, making shells, hence why there's great seams of limestone rock. But interestingly, co2 levels got dangerously low, any lower than 150ppm-180ppm, life dies.

So technically, processes and mankind saved the planet with co2, and we are still in a co2 drought. So global warming morphed into climate change and climate change morphed into speed of climate change. And as predictions and computer models continue to flunk, speed of climate change will morph into a fourth step.

What can we live to, upto a hundred years old? What's 100 years in relation to geological time? Probably one pimple, on an arse that's the size of the sun. Yet alarmists and governments are hell bent on making this time of ours as difficult as possible. But it's, "But but but, think of future generations". Ok, which past generations thought about us? Do they seriously think changing my car is going to save them from their imaginary calamity?

 

[Foxfyre]

UK - In the family tree, one family member got ran over by a horse and cart, never mind a car. Even when the first cars came out, a person with a red flag walked Infront of the car. Accidents and deaths still happened.

Many things on the planet belch out co2 and other greenhouse gases, many processes and organisms absorb such things. Co2 was many thousands ppm millions of years ago, foliage flourished that much, it supported enormous reptiles called dinosaurs. Where did the co2 go? Crustaceans absorbed loads, making shells, hence why there's great seams of limestone rock. But interestingly, co2 levels got dangerously low, any lower than 150ppm-180ppm, life dies.

So technically, processes and mankind saved the planet with co2, and we are still in a co2 drought. So global warming morphed into climate change and climate change morphed into speed of climate change. And as predictions and computer models continue to flunk, speed of climate change will morph into a fourth step.

What can we live to, upto a hundred years old? What's 100 years in relation to geological time? Probably one pimple, on an arse that's the size of the sun. Yet alarmists and governments are hell bent on making this time of ours as difficult as possible. But it's, "But but but, think of future generations". Ok, which past generations thought about us? Do they seriously think changing my car is going to save them from their imaginary calamity?

I know the concept you report here is part of the national debate albeit one that the climate religionists, including the surrogate leftist media, suppress as much as they are able. And it should be part of the national debate. Thank you for a thoughtful and well presented post.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

As opposed to the time-honored democrat solution which is throw tons of money at the problem, enrich their supporters, and get re-elected but solve nothing.

It is dumbshit stupid to spend trillions of dollars not knowing if it'll do any good.

If you want to discuss politics and rip on shitty Dems or whatever fine, but saying basically 'we cannot know whether its cooling or warming or what it will be when or if we should pay for something or not or even how, who knows who cares' is not really contributing anything to the conversation. Without any details the OP boils down to we need to have enough money to address whatever might happen with zero concept or expression of what that 'whatever' is. It's a bad faith pro-growth argument under the guise somehow being climate policy related. If they are going to introduce the spectre of climate change and offer up that we will just have to adapt well then what exactly do they think we are adapting to make sense of their solutions? Everyone just needs to be richer and extracting even more of the remaining finite resources of the planet and somehow the resultant capital with magically fix the follow-on effects.

 

[task0778]

If they are going to introduce the spectre of climate change and offer up that we will just have to adapt well then what exactly do they think we are adapting to make sense of their solutions?

Who is' they'? The Left are the ones introducing the specter of climate change and they are the ones that want to spend untold trillions to combat it without knowing jackshit about whether it'll do any good or who will be negatively affected. The Conservatives are the ones who are saying 'no, we aren't going to spend untold trillions on anything until we are sure it is needed and the proposed solutions will adequately work'.

Everyone just needs to be richer and extracting even more of the remaining finite resources of the planet and somehow the resultant capital with magically fix the follow-on effects.

I am assuming this is an attempt at sarcasm. If so, it's bullshit. First, what's wrong with everyone getting richer? Second, nobody is suggesting that extracting more fossil fuels will fix the consequences. Third, if every country on Earth stopped extracting fossil fuels then what would the consequences be for billions of people in poverty or close to it?