Where is the confession?

[SSDD]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

You're driving your car down the highway. There is a bridge abutment up ahead. Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

So you have nothing but a logical fallacy...this time a red herring...why is that not surprising?

 

[SSDD]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

No CO2 = no climate change. Not Ever

Frank, go back to sleep. When you wake up, go somewhere else. School would be a good choice.

So you're saying CO2 does not drive climate? Can you pick a story and stick with it?

He lies so much he can't keep track of his stories...much less stick to one. Variety...the spice of life...and all that.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, you're going to throw your lot in with Frank? Well, that should make Frank feel better. And it'll be a step up for you.

Oh, and Frank, stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you want to quote me, quote me. Don't try to put your spin on it or give us your insightful interpretation cause all it does is add one more brick to that sky-high pile of stupid you've got going there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD, you're going to throw your lot in with Frank? Well, that should make Frank feel better. And it'll be a step up for you.

Oh, and Frank, stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you want to quote me, quote me. Don't try to put your spin on it or give us your insightful interpretation cause all it does is add one more brick to that sky-high pile of stupid you've got going there.

Crick, does CO2 drive climate, yes or no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much support you find for nuclear power depends on how you select your "enviroweenies". After Fukushima there's plenty of antipathy towards nuclear power among the general population, deniers and environmentalists alike. So it's pointless to try to attack one side or the other with the issue.

Switching to alternative energy technology is already underway and to a point that most could not have imagined even a decade ago. The economy has not been hurt by the effort and there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be. We aren't switching to make the economy better. We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm. That you don't see that harm is your problem. Really. It is.

We're switching to save ourselves from a far, far larger harm.

I'm still waiting for someone to show what the ideal temperature of the planet really is.
Maybe you'll be the first?

You're driving your car down the highway. There is a bridge abutment up ahead. Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Before I spend trillions to change the Earth's temperature, I need to know what the perfect temperature is that I should aim for.

Is it higher? Is it lower? How do you know? Show your work.

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

First things first, calculate the perfect temperature.

 

[Crick]

You're driving your car down the highway. There is a bridge abutment up ahead. Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

Before I spend trillions to change the Earth's temperature, I need to know what the perfect temperature is that I should aim for.

Is it higher? Is it lower? How do you know? Show your work.

Then I guess you're a good deal more stupid than I had suspected

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're driving your car down the highway. There is a bridge abutment up ahead. Do you need to know the precise forces that will be produced by running into it at high speed before being able to conclude that you should not do so?

Don't waste our time. We've got things to do.

Before I spend trillions to change the Earth's temperature, I need to know what the perfect temperature is that I should aim for.

Is it higher? Is it lower? How do you know? Show your work.

Then I guess you're a good deal more stupid than I had suspected

You still haven't shown what the perfect temperature should be.
What are you afraid of?

 

[IanC]

The temp that would stop the glaciers from melting would also freeze a lot of people.

 

[mamooth]

Before I spend trillions to change the Earth's temperature, I need to know what the perfect temperature is that I should aim for.

The temperature that our human civiliztion evolved with. So, about 1.0C lower would be the best case. Sadly, that's not achievable in our lifetimes.

That wasn't a tough question. Nobody paid attention to it because it was so stupid. We were being nice, trying not to embarrass you. The funny part was how you were so sure that such a dumb question was some kind of stumper.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Before I spend trillions to change the Earth's temperature, I need to know what the perfect temperature is that I should aim for.

The temperature that our human civiliztion evolved with. So, about 1.0C lower would be the best case. Sadly, that's not achievable in our lifetimes.

That wasn't a tough question. Nobody paid attention to it because it was so stupid. We were being nice, trying not to embarrass you. The funny part was how you were so sure that such a dumb question was some kind of stumper.

The temperature that our human civiliztion evolved with

The temperature has varied over the last 6000 years.

So, about 1.0C lower would be the best case.

Why?

That wasn't a tough question. Nobody paid attention to it because it was so stupid.

You want us to spend tens of trillions because you feel 1.0C lower is perfect and my question was stupid? LOL!

The funny part was how you were so sure that such a dumb question was some kind of stumper.

You answered with a feeling, looks like you're still stumped.
Try again? This time, give the data that proves why 1.0C cooler is the best case.

 

[Crick]

Because its about the temperature in which human civilization developed. And his answer wasn't stupid. Your insistence that we have to know that value before acting to stop warming - THAT'S the stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because its about the temperature in which human civilization developed. And his answer wasn't stupid. Your insistence that we have to know that value before acting to stop warming - THAT'S the stupid.

Because its about the temperature in which human civilization developed.

It's been a couple of degrees warmer and a couple of degrees colder during our human civilization.
We currently have civilization where the temperature is much colder than the "global average" as well as where the temperature is much warmer than the "global average".
Sorry, not worth spending tens of trillions without a more precise reason.

Your insistence that we have to know that value before acting to stop warming - THAT'S the stupid.

If a couple of degrees warmer is closer to the "perfect temperature", then wasting tens of trillions to make it colder would be stupid. And wasteful.

I can see why libs like the idea.

 

[Crick]

Todd, the concern about global warming is not that its taking us away from some ideal temperature. It is that it is changing the world's temperature at a rate with which we will be unable to naturally cope. As you say, it's been up and down a few degrees over the course of human history. But has humanity ever had to move a billion people away from the coasts? Has humanity eve had to deal with hundreds of millions of people losing their water supplies? Has humanity ever witnessed the marine extinction event that our rapid acidification of the oceans is going to produce? Has humanity ever had to deal with crop failures as widespread as global warming is going to produce? That answer to all is no. The idea is NOT to push the Earth towards some ideal temperature. The idea is to slow the rate at which it is being changed by human influences.

I know you are aware of this fact and thus, that you have created a thread like this annoys me to no end. You're wasting our time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the concern about global warming is not that its taking us away from some ideal temperature. It is that it is changing the world's temperature at a rate with which we will be unable to naturally cope. As you say, it's been up and down a few degrees over the course of human history. But has humanity ever had to move a billion people away from the coasts? Has humanity eve had to deal with hundreds of millions of people losing their water supplies? Has humanity ever witnessed the marine extinction event that our rapid acidification of the oceans is going to produce? Has humanity ever had to deal with crop failures as widespread as global warming is going to produce? That answer to all is no. The idea is NOT to push the Earth towards some ideal temperature. The idea is to slow the rate at which it is being changed by human influences.

I know you are aware of this fact and thus, that you have created a thread like this annoys me to no end. You're wasting our time.

Todd, the concern about global warming is not that its taking us away from some ideal temperature. It is that it is changing the world's temperature at a rate with which we will be unable to naturally cope.

Humanity is not a delicate orchid. We manage to survive very cold as well as very warm temperatures.
Chicago, for instance, has very wide swings between January and July, talk about a high rate of change. Somehow, we cope.

has humanity ever had to...

Yada...yada...yada.
Those all sound like scary, expensive possibilities.
Maybe we should save the tens of trillions that warmers want to waste on windmills so we have it available in case those scary actions are needed?

The idea is NOT to push the Earth towards some ideal temperature.

So if a 3C increase actually increases crop yields, you still want to spend trillions in a futile attempt to stop it,
because change is bad?

 

[Crick]

Humanity has never experienced climate change at the rate at which it is currently taking place. The last time the oceans experienced pH changes as rapid as those they are currently undergoing, The Permian Triassic Extinction Event 252 million years ago, 96% of marine species went extinct. But you're not worried, are you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Humanity has never experienced climate change at the rate at which it is currently taking place. The last time the oceans experienced pH changes as rapid as those they are currently undergoing, The Permian Triassic Extinction Event 252 million years ago, 96% of marine species went extinct. But you're not worried, are you.

Humanity has never experienced climate change at the rate at which it is currently taking place.

You can't prove that.

 

[Crick]

I most certainly can. You forget how young we are. Homo Sapiens only became dominant some 200,000 years ago.

 

[mamooth]

It's been a couple of degrees warmer and a couple of degrees colder during our human civilization.

In the last five centuries, the average temperature has varied by less than half a degree. Human infrastructure was built based on that stable temperature.

That is, your stupid conclusion is based on your ignorance of the facts.

I can see why libs like the idea.

You consistent failure at all the science, logic and history does not reflect badly on us.

You logic failure here is especially amusing. You're the one who wants to spend money changing the atmosphere, while we want to minimize any changes. You say changing the atmosphere is bad, so by your own standards, your argument that we need to change the atmosphere stinks. Your argument is self-contradicting. And if you'd stop hanging out with such a rationality-challenged crowd of conservatives, someone would have pointed that out to you long ago.

 

[Crick]

So if a 3C increase actually increases crop yields, you still want to spend trillions in a futile attempt to stop it,
because change is bad?

If you think increased crop yields are worth the harm we will suffer from a rapid 3C temperature increase, you're out of your fucking mind.

 

[mamooth]

Given that a 3C rise would have a major negative effect on crop yields, it's not even a sensible question.