You should be afraid and you should act

[PeanutGallery]

Perhaps you should point out to me where I asked you to propose any ideas on how to address climate change before now? What's your evidence that you're right? Computer models? How accurate have they been as to what should've already happened because of global warming/climate change? Like I said earlier, there are plenty of people who say they believe in climate change, but don't live their lives like they believe it. When I see the wealthy start moving away or abandoning their beachfront properties and low-elevation islands, I'll be more inclined to listen.

NOW I'm going to ask you for ideas to address climate change. You said that if the world had done something decades ago, we would've had a chance to solve the problem. In order to think that way, you have to have an idea or ideas in your head on what should've been done. So, what should've been done back then to address the problem? I mean, we can't control weather, but some people believe we that we can control the climate.

Dang dadoalex, a whole week and you can't put your ideas into words?

 

[DGS49]

Here are a few facts that never seem to make their way into the pointy little heads of such scientists:

Most of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, now and for the foreseeable future, will be attributable to the several billion people in the third and developing worlds, who are just starting to approach modernity because of the use of plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, mainly coal. Nothing could be more cruel, unreal, or destructive than to tell these unfortunate souls that they must scale back, in order to save the planet. They won't do it and they should not be asked to.

Given the foregoing, and given the massive, inflexible energy needs of our technological infrastructure (transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, energy production, water and wastewater treatment), anything done "on the margins" to reduce the human "carbon footprint" - things such as parking our SUV's, fiddling with our thermostats, working from home - will have such a microscopic impact on the overall picture as to be laughable. And yet they would be quite painful to WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, in the form of inflation, discomfort, and inconvenience.

I choose to think that mankind will do what it has always done: develop engineering solutions to the problems as (and before) they arise. Lest we forget, mankind has made vast inhospitable deserts, frozen wastelands, and swamps into happy, eminently habitable areas. Think Phoenix, Alaska, the Netherlands, New Orleans. And we will do it again.

Does anybody really think that Venice and New York City will just allow rising seas to turn them into empty curiosities?

 

[Crick]

Here are a few facts that never seem to make their way into the pointy little heads of such scientists:

Most of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, now and for the foreseeable future, will be attributable to the several billion people in the third and developing worlds, who are just starting to approach modernity because of the use of plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, mainly coal. Nothing could be more cruel, unreal, or destructive than to tell these unfortunate souls that they must scale back, in order to save the planet. They won't do it and they should not be asked to.

Given the foregoing, and given the massive, inflexible energy needs of our technological infrastructure (transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, energy production, water and wastewater treatment), anything done "on the margins" to reduce the human "carbon footprint" - things such as parking our SUV's, fiddling with our thermostats, working from home - will have such a microscopic impact on the overall picture as to be laughable. And yet they would be quite painful to WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, in the form of inflation, discomfort, and inconvenience.

I choose to think that mankind will do what it has always done: develop engineering solutions to the problems as (and before) they arise. Lest we forget, mankind has made vast inhospitable deserts, frozen wastelands, and swamps into happy, eminently habitable areas. Think Phoenix, Alaska, the Netherlands, New Orleans. And we will do it again.

Does anybody really think that Venice and New York City will just allow rising seas to turn them into empty curiosities?

Engineering solutions like parking your SUVs, fiddling with our thermostats, working from home, EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and other non-emitting energy technologies. Got it. What makes you think that Venice and New York City will do any better than did New Orleans with Katrina or New York and New Jersey with Sandy? Did they not know about hurricanes?

 

[Matted Joybeard]

We're going to try and engineer our way out of climate change as it wrecks the infrastructure and supply lines upon which it depends. Right. And somehow be simultaneously profitable.

Current natural disasters are outstripping public sector coffers and no one wants to pay higher taxes. Additionally it's becoming to expensive to presently insure and expanding set of locales so what we will see is an abandonment of deteriorating regions, not some tech turnaround.

Those fleeing these regions will place strain on the ones that remain and introduce all sort of inflationary pressures at the very least. Those with emotions in resources will try to flee to their prepped compounds and bunkers as already evidenced by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg buying up island lots in a bid for isolated survival.

 

[The Duke]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

So you agree with the J6 Protesters

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Engineering solutions like parking your SUVs, fiddling with our thermostats, working from home, EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and other non-emitting energy technologies. Got it. What makes you think that Venice and New York City will do any better than did New Orleans with Katrina or New York and New Jersey with Sandy? Did they not know about hurricanes?

While the USA lowered its “carbon footprint” China and India, the biggest emitters of Earth killing CO2, are INCREASING theirs, what’s the fix for them? None!

This is just another piece of evidence that this isn’t about the climate, it’s a de facto redistribution of wealth, just like the man from the IPCC said over a decade ago

 

[ding]

We're going to try and engineer our way out of climate change as it wrecks the infrastructure and supply lines upon which it depends. Right. And somehow be simultaneously profitable.

Current natural disasters are outstripping public sector coffers and no one wants to pay higher taxes. Additionally it's becoming to expensive to presently insure and expanding set of locales so what we will see is an abandonment of deteriorating regions, not some tech turnaround.

Those fleeing these regions will place strain on the ones that remain and introduce all sort of inflationary pressures at the very least. Those with emotions in resources will try to flee to their prepped compounds and bunkers as already evidenced by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg buying up island lots in a bid for isolated survival.

It's just weather.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're going to try and engineer our way out of climate change as it wrecks the infrastructure and supply lines upon which it depends. Right. And somehow be simultaneously profitable.

Current natural disasters are outstripping public sector coffers and no one wants to pay higher taxes. Additionally it's becoming to expensive to presently insure and expanding set of locales so what we will see is an abandonment of deteriorating regions, not some tech turnaround.

Those fleeing these regions will place strain on the ones that remain and introduce all sort of inflationary pressures at the very least. Those with emotions in resources will try to flee to their prepped compounds and bunkers as already evidenced by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg buying up island lots in a bid for isolated survival.

We're going to need a lot more cheap fossil fuel.
And probably some nukes.
How many more nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're going to need a lot more cheap fossil fuel.
And probably some nukes.
How many more nuclear reactors should we build?

Dozens

Thorium

 

[The Duke]

We're going to need a lot more cheap fossil fuel.
And probably some nukes.
How many more nuclear reactors should we build?

A lot more, and run the power underground. We should use more small modular reactors.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

While the USA lowered its “carbon footprint” China and India, the biggest emitters of Earth killing CO2, are INCREASING theirs, what’s the fix for them? None!

This is just another piece of evidence that this isn’t about the climate, it’s a de facto redistribution of wealth, just like the man from the IPCC said over a decade ago

Yet China still basically make the bulk of what the world consumes. Western nations have lowered their emissions through decades of off shoring. The byproduct of lower emissions wasn't a goal but rather a byproduct that is now framed such as to be a cudgel against actually taking climate action. 'Why should we destroy our jobs through environmental regulation when China is the biggest polluter?' is the refrain. Totally a bad faith argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet China still basically make the bulk of what the world consumes. Western nations have lowered their emissions through decades of off shoring. The byproduct of lower emissions wasn't a goal but rather a byproduct that is now framed such as to be a cudgel against actually taking climate action. 'Why should we destroy our jobs through environmental regulation when China is the biggest polluter?' is the refrain. Totally a bad faith argument.

That's outrageous!

Only greens are allowed to make bad faith arguments.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet China still basically make the bulk of what the world consumes. Western nations have lowered their emissions through decades of off shoring. The byproduct of lower emissions wasn't a goal but rather a byproduct that is now framed such as to be a cudgel against actually taking climate action. 'Why should we destroy our jobs through environmental regulation when China is the biggest polluter?' is the refrain. Totally a bad faith argument.

Ridiculous!

But proving the point that it was never about "saving the planet" but about driving the US economy into the dirt

 

[Crick]

It's not slipped our attention that you neither refuted nor challenged a single thing the OP's article states. You put up a picture in a puerile and pathetic attempt to insult me as a 6th grader would do. John Wayne was no brain trust, but you insult the man's legacy with your choice of avatar.

 

[The Duke]

It's not slipped our attention that you neither refuted nor challenged a single thing the OP's article states. You put up a picture in a puerile and pathetic attempt to insult me as a 6th grader would do. John Wayne was no brain trust, but you insult the man's legacy with your choice of avatar.

 

[Crick]

Have you posted this sophisticated and intellectually nuanced graphic more than once because you ran into limitations of own?

 

[ding]

Yet China still basically make the bulk of what the world consumes. Western nations have lowered their emissions through decades of off shoring. The byproduct of lower emissions wasn't a goal but rather a byproduct that is now framed such as to be a cudgel against actually taking climate action. 'Why should we destroy our jobs through environmental regulation when China is the biggest polluter?' is the refrain. Totally a bad faith argument.

It seems to me the argument you are making is a bad faith argument. But I do agree with your correlation between AGW related environmental regulations and destroying jobs.

But I don't necessarily see it as destroying jobs as much as I see it as incurring unnecessary costs and lowering our standard of living.

 

[80zephyr]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire

Until the rich and powerful act like they want us to live, they can go to hell. Until government acts like there is a crisis by using clean nuclear power to save us from burning up, I won't believe a word of what they are saying.

Actions are what I understand. Not words.

 

[gipper]

Fear combined with hope can motivate the public to act rather than make people feel helpless

Opinion: I’m a climate scientist. If you knew what I know, you’d be terrified too

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire

What a terrible waste of time and resources. Trouble is coming, but it’s not from man-made global warming. The geomagnetic field is weakening allowing severe space weather events in our future. We aren’t preparing for it, but are wasting of time and resources on unproven ignorance that is AGW. This is the real threat.
Cataclysmic Polarity Shift : Tyler J. WIlliams : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive