flacaltenn
Diamond Member
The scientists' obligation is to inform folks of risks.. To make those risks as quantitative as possible. Some in government believe that risk of any magnitude is simply not acceptable. And they would eagerly ABUSE political power to separate folks from ALL risk. No financial risks, no health risks, no educational risks, no enviro risks.. Thats unrealistic and unwanted restriction on personal choice and liberty.
The GW crazytrain has failed to provide adequate precision in their fearsome projections. Not specific enough to uproot our entire economic base and lifestyle. And the complicit Green movement has failed to offer any viable alternatives to CO2 emissions. There is no true consensus, because scientists are no longer arrogant enough to predict the temperature anomaly for 2060..
Challenge for the Warmer Zealots... WHAT is the consensus temperature anomaly for 2060? If you dont have that to any certainty, why are we here discussing mitigations?
What was the consensus area for the anticipated large slide at Oso? 1/4 mile? 1/2 mile? 1 mile? Such a number was not given, and didn't really matter, for a loss of life and property were involved in all cases. The geologists warnings were ignored and a lot of people have died.
We already know from the affects already observed that the costs of the increased temperatures will be very non-trivial. We are seeing villages abondoned in the Andes because of glaciers that no longer provide the late summer water for crops.
But, because of a lot of people that are supporting the lies of the energy corps, the neccessary measures will not be taken. And a lot of people are going to suffer. And neither the energy corperations or their supporters give a damn.
If I recall what I heard correctly.. The problem at OSO was UNDERPANICK on the part of "scientific" projections.. The problem was the reports to the public never emphasized that the slide was capable of CROSSING THE RIVER where the folks lived.. Your response illustrates my point. Leftists desire political action that results in RISK-FREE existence, the rest of us want ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS so that we can do our own risk evaluations.. The issue at OSO is EXACTLY that the "science was vague".. YET -- you wanted the risks to be evaluated HIGHER than the predictions were indicating.. At least you're a consistent leftist.
As for GW -- define "non-trivial".. You cannot expect a range of 1.5 to 8 degC to be sufficient guidance to make MASSIVE policy commitments. Changes of 0.5degC over your lifetime ARE NOT causing 1/2 the shit that you imagine they are today.. That's an observation that is NOT part of the consensus. ICE may be melting, but that is a multi-century trend..
There are CLEAR actions that COULD be taken to reduce CO2 dramatically. 100 new nuclear plants would be a huge leap forward and an ACTUAL alternative as opposed to FAKE alternatives that are getting rewarded right now because of the GW hysteria.
Mitigation for sea level rise is something that NEEDS to happen.. But not out of panic and "imagined" deadlines driven by fear and uncertainty.
Current empirical evidence is that CO2 increases will cause about the SAME RATE of 0.6degC over a lifetime if we did NOTHING. At that rate -- it shouldn't be the circus Big Top that it has become.....