A Balanced View of Climate Change

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
69,664
35,331
2,645
Desert Southwest USA
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.


 
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.

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.


Climate hysteria is a non-science, lowbrow approach to kneecapping the US economy.

There’s no science and no common sense to it
 
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.


Great post, it will fall on deaf ears though.

The AGW folks will claim it is about science and logic, but it really isn't.

It is a religion for these folks at this point.


8j95si.jpg
 
Climate hysteria is a non-science, lowbrow approach to kneecapping the US economy.

There’s no science and no common sense to it
Until the 'scientific' world and those who use it's conclusion for policymaking are brutally honest about it, it will continue to erode both liberty and resources from the people in unnecessary and often very detrimental ways. And yes, as Lomborg pointed out, climate hysteria is a far cry from anything science based.

Doctrines that do not allow questions, possible alternatives, different points of view to be part of the public debate is not science. It is propaganda for political purposes.
 
Great post, it will fall on deaf ears though.

The AGW folks will claim it is about science and logic, but it really isn't.

It is a religion for these folks at this point.


8j95si.jpg
Thank you. It is indeed like a religion to many, but far more sinister it is too often propaganda for political motives that aren't usually in our best interests.
 
When president O'bozo declared that AGW was settled science. I knew right then the American people were were in for a rough time and our economy was headed into a death spiral.
Also that infrastructure bill went most for climate change and other agenda like that. Probably less than 1/3rd was earmarked for anything close to infrastructure and it's anybody's guess whether it has been or will be used for that. We constantly hear what the money is to be used for. But there seems to be very little reporting on what has actually been done.

Same with climate change. We hear the scare mongering and why we need to spend trillions of dollars to combat climate change, but they never report what good effect it is having do they.
 
Throughout history there has been many times when all the learned men and scientists agreed on an issue and like today's AGW crowd turned it into a religious cult.
The earth is flat not round..
Physically impossible for a man to run a 4 minute mile.
Airplane's will never fly faster than the speed of sound.
Man will never walk on the moon.
etc.
 
Throughout history there has been many times when all the learned men and scientists agreed on an issue and like today's AGW crowd turned it into a religious cult.
The earth is flat not round..
Physically impossible for a man to run a 4 minute mile.
Airplane's will never fly faster than the speed of sound.
Man will never walk on the moon.
etc.
Yup and what causes fire to burn was universally thought to be an invisible substance called phlogiston. And the sun moved around the Earth that was thought to be stationary in its space which admittedly was more a conclusion of religious dogmatism than science. Science is repeatedly finding new theories whether this or that dietary substance is good for us or not good for us and reversing themselves on various things once thought to be so-called 'settled science.'

A closed mind on any scientific subject, other that which is irrefutably observable, will not cite science but rather propaganda or dogmatism. And any researcher who falsifies or omits data so as to produce a certain conclusion is not a scientist but rather a politician or self-serving grifter regardless of what credentials he/she can claim.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, the climate is changing. Anyone that denies that is a moron.

Is it natural change, man made? A mix of both? Who knows and who really cares.

Going along with the points in the OP, even if it was proven 100% beyond any shadow of any doubt that humans are responsible, we are not going to make the changes necessary to stop it.

Thus the fight over the cause is stupid and harmful as it slows the work to mitigate the damage form the changes and get as much out of the positives of it that we can.

But, in the current political environment we will never be able to do that, too many people would rather win an argument on line than do anything that might help
 
Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it.



No major disagreements .
But suggest you look at the matter differently :-
.
What is the Deep State's true motivation for raising this Topic to become arguably the most discussed anywhere and everywhere ?

It is about the 1% controlling the Sheeple through largely Fake fear and dread of change .

Therefore , I suggest
You will get nowhere unless you fight them as seriously as they are fighting"us" .

That is where the War should be .
NOT Ukraine , Middle East and possibly Africa . Those are Deflection matters to keep your attention from this Topic plus the evil wrought by the bio weapon Covid and the Killer Shots

BUT ridding the planet of the1% who use Climate Change as their proxy force to break their slaves financially and build total control over the remainder .
imho
 
Last edited:
No major disagreements .
But suggest you look at the matter differently :-
.
What is the Deep State's true motivation for raising this Topic to become arguably the most discussed anywhere and everywhere ?

It is about the 1% controlling the Sheeple through largely Fake fear and dread of change .

Therefore , I suggest
You will get nowhere unless you fight them as seriously as they are fighting"us" .

That is where the War should be .
NOT Ukraine , Middle East and possibly Africa . Those are Deflection matters to keep your attention from this Topic plus the evil wrought by the bio weapon Covid and the Killer Shots

BUT ridding the planet of the1% who use Climate Change as their proxy force to break their slaves financially and build total control over the remainder .
imho
The deep state's true motivation in my opinion and that of many others is to have an excuse for the central government to take more and more control of the everyday lives of the people for an ultimate purpose of an essentially totalitarian government that will assign the people what rights they are allowed to have, what property they are allowed to keep or use, etc. The only ones who will ultimately benefit from that are those who hold the power and will never have to relinquish it plus those who are particularly favored by the government because of their usefulness to it.
 
Bottom line, the climate is changing. Anyone that denies that is a moron.

Is it natural change, man made? A mix of both? Who knows and who really cares.

Going along with the points in the OP, even if it was proven 100% beyond any shadow of any doubt that humans are responsible, we are not going to make the changes necessary to stop it.

Thus the fight over the cause is stupid and harmful as it slows the work to mitigate the damage form the changes and get as much out of the positives of it that we can.

But, in the current political environment we will never be able to do that, too many people would rather win an argument on line than do anything that might help
too many people would rather win an argument on line than do anything that might help
I think we better win some arguments with the wacko greenies before they take us back 200 years
 
All the research is really cool ... a fair part of it long overdue ... but if you feel guilty, just remember the peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich used to power a bicycle is carbon-neutral ...
 
'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 we better win some arguments with the wacko greenies before they take us back 200 years
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.
 
Bottom line, the climate is changing. Anyone that denies that is a moron.

Is it natural change, man made? A mix of both? Who knows and who really cares.

Going along with the points in the OP, even if it was proven 100% beyond any shadow of any doubt that humans are responsible, we are not going to make the changes necessary to stop it.

Thus the fight over the cause is stupid and harmful as it slows the work to mitigate the damage form the changes and get as much out of the positives of it that we can.

But, in the current political environment we will never be able to do that, too many people would rather win an argument on line than do anything that might help
I just look at all those wind farms, solar panel fields. I look at all the mandates and regulations for making automobiles, trucks etc. more fuel efficient and more emission free (adding $6k to $8k to the average price of a new car in the Obama administration alone). I look at the required energy efficiency of appliances and new construction that has made them more costly and too often less efficient and durable. And all those mandates, rules, regulations, laws, and incalculable trillions expended has apparently not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single measurable particle.

And the massively increased human population is not going away.

But the trolls, idiots, climate religionists, true believers in AGW have rejected all science other than what they have chosen to adopt as gospel. And they will not even consider any other way to look at it or constructively deal with the problem as the OP suggests.

You cannot win an argument with a fanatic.
 

Forum List

Back
Top