The Relevence of U.S. Politics in Facing AGW

sunmaster14 said:
This thought process is so common among global warming alarmists and yet so perverse at the same time. Perhaps the efficient solution to global warming is to start a nuclear war and eliminate half the world's population. That ought to cut carbon emissions big time.
Click to expand...

That's the plot of Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol.
 
Belz... said:
That's the plot of Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol.
Click to expand...

EndGame-The-Documentary.jpg


Also this one
 
It was the ALex Jones movie about the elite's plan to depopulate the earth.

Malthusian ideas are a mainstay in the infowars crowd...
 
3point14 said:
When people consider that an effective argument for not mitigating man made climate change is that it would harm the economy, when this argument is sincerely made and believed by those making it, when those who make such an argument not only refuse to accept the science but also refuse to review it and, instead, create their own, utterly fictionalised version of the future and when all of this is taken seriously, we are all, or rather all our children, or rather all your children, I don't have any, screwed.
Click to expand...

Beyond this, anthropogenic climate change is already impacting our economy and our health. it isn't just our children and our grandchildren that we have to consider, it is our selves, our neighbors, and our fellow humans across the planet.
 
Trakar said:
it isn't just our children and our grandchildren that we have to consider, it is our selves, our neighbors, and our fellow humans across the planet.
Click to expand...

Since when have humans been capable of caring what happens to other people.

25 kids have died needless and preventable deaths while I typed this post, and if people can't be made to care about kids dying right now, what on earth makes you think they're ever going to care about children who haven't even been conceived yet?

Christ, as dozens of people are shot and killed USA, what's happens? Gun sales increase.
 
The Atheist said:
Since when have humans been capable of caring what happens to other people.

25 kids have died needless and preventable deaths while I typed this post, and if people can't be made to care about kids dying right now, what on earth makes you think they're ever going to care about children who haven't even been conceived yet?

Christ, as dozens of people are shot and killed USA, what's happens? Gun sales increase.
Click to expand...

Again, not being able to immediately and completely stop all unnecessary death, pain, and suffering, does not mean that the best choice of action is to do nothing and ignore the problem. Every step we take to reduce a problem makes both that problem and the effects of that problem a little easier to address.
 
Trakar said:
Again, not being able to immediately and completely stop all unnecessary death, pain, and suffering, does not mean that the best choice of action is to do nothing and ignore the problem.
Click to expand...

Except it does in most cases. That's why charities struggle to get the money to fix the problems - problems which could be solved with just a few billion dollars.

The vast majority of people choose to do nothing. That is the default position.

Stop trying to change it - buy some cheap land now about 100 miles inland from NYC. Your great-great grandkids will be trillionaires, owning beachfront property there.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Not really an example of Pascal's Mugging. I'm kind of countering one.
Click to expand...
You are one blabbling nonsense about zombie apocalypse vs global warming. One is supported by 98%+ of revelant scientists (not that it would matter to denialist), other is physical impossibility against laws of biology.

sunmaster14 said:
The thing is, when quality of life is threatened by overpopulation, people stop having children.
Click to expand...
Do you have any source for this magic? I could believe that provided they (children or people in general) simply die faster than new are born due to conditions of overcrowding, but I somehow doubt it is what you intended. At least I hope you do not condone things like that.

sunmaster14 said:
Exactly what resource is it that is in short supply now because of our profligate consumption?
Click to expand...
Problem is not consumption in itself. Problem is attitude and excess (and also redistribution, but that's different topic). Eat like pigs, indeed.
 
Mader Levap said:
You are one blabbling nonsense about zombie apocalypse vs global warming. One is supported by 98%+ of revelant scientists (not that it would matter to denialist), other is physical impossibility against laws of biology.
Click to expand...

If deniers can cite the biblical flood myth as evidence that global warming isn't happening, they sure can appeal to zombies, for all I care.
 
Trakar said:
Beyond this, anthropogenic climate change is already impacting our economy and our health. it isn't just our children and our grandchildren that we have to consider, it is our selves, our neighbors, and our fellow humans across the planet.
Click to expand...

Whom we let die by the millions?

"6.3 million children under the age of five died in 2013.
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/

So we obviously have no problem with letting millions of kids die in the world each year, even when the solution is "simple, affordable interventions".

But you're claiming humans will rally together and devote/divert huge amounts of resources to prevent disasters that are decades (perhaps a century) in the making? That's a pipe dream, and a dangerous one because it distracts from efforts that actually can make a difference: mitigation of warming (geo-engineering) levees and other engineering projects, and relocation of affected people.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Except it does in most cases. That's why charities struggle to get the money to fix the problems - problems which could be solved with just a few billion dollars.

The vast majority of people choose to do nothing. That is the default position.

Stop trying to change it - buy some cheap land now about 100 miles inland from NYC. Your great-great grandkids will be trillionaires, owning beachfront property there.
Click to expand...

A wise man whom I find myself respecting and admiring more and more each day once told me that only shallow, foolish miscreants look in a mirror and believe that the arrogant ignorance, callous disregard for others, and self-centered greed which they perceive, is actually reflective of other people's motivations and behaviors.

Your opinion is noted, I'm sure it is well earned and I have no intention of trying to dissuade you of it or persuade you otherwise, as I am fairly certain that it would merely be a waste of both of our time.

That said, the purpose of this thread is to discuss public policy with regard to addressing the problem and issues resulting from anthropogenic forced climate change.

So far, I've mentioned both a target policy to impact one of the primary problems forcing and worsening AGW. Namely, a revenue neutral carbon tariff. I've also mentioned a target policy that eases some of the issues resulting from AGW while helping all of us to more easily adapt to the changes that are already unfolding, and in the pipeline already. I'd be interested in hearing and discussing any public policy ideas that anyone else would like to suggest to address and deal with either the problem of AGW or the effects of AGW.
 
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is important.

From the WHO report:
Overall, substantial progress has been made towards achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4. Since 1990 the global under-five mortality rate has dropped from 90 deaths per 1000 live births in 1990 to 46 in 2013. But the rate of this reduction in under-five mortality is still insufficient to reach the MDG target of a two-thirds reduction of 1990 mortality levels by the year 2015.
Click to expand...

A concerted effort has been made and mortality rates cut in half. I don't think that supports your opinion that people aren't willing to do anything.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Stop trying to change it - buy some cheap land now about 100 miles inland from NYC. Your great-great grandkids will be trillionaires, owning beachfront property there.
Click to expand...

Not much help to be on the beach if levels keep rising.

ETA: Anyone know off the bat how much levels would rise if the icecaps melted?

One poster I associate with conservatism says AGW is wildly overblown and policymakers need not address it; another is saying it's too late to alter the trend with policy so why bother.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Whom we let die by the millions?

"6.3 million children under the age of five died in 2013.
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/

So we obviously have no problem with letting millions of kids die in the world each year, even when the solution is "simple, affordable interventions".

But you're claiming humans will rally together and devote/divert huge amounts of resources to prevent disasters that are decades (perhaps a century) in the making? That's a pipe dream, and a dangerous one because it distracts from efforts that actually can make a difference: mitigation of warming (geo-engineering) levees and other engineering projects, and relocation of affected people.
Click to expand...

Who is the "we" you refer to repeatedly?
Personally, professionally, and with regard to national and international, public policy, I and most of the people I know personally, strive to reduce suffering and death, improve the health and enhance the opportunities for education, personal development and economic security for all people.
 
Trakar said:
A wise man whom I find myself respecting and admiring more and more each day once told me that only shallow, foolish miscreants look in a mirror and believe that the arrogant ignorance, callous disregard for others, and self-centered greed which they perceive, is actually reflective of other people's motivations and behaviors.
Click to expand...

I must commend you on your ability to use so many pretty words to say something both irrelevant and incorrect.

I'm very happy to stack my altruism up against anyone's. I'm not describing my motivation, but the lack of it in other people.

If you believe people are ready and willing to take positive action on climate change, from Billary down to people living in trailers, then present that instead of the waffle.


Trakar said:
Your opinion is noted, I'm sure it is well earned and I have no intention of trying to dissuade you of it or persuade you otherwise, as I am fairly certain that it would merely be a waste of both of our time.
Click to expand...

Not at all - you only have to do one little thing:

Show evidence that there is a majority of people - in any country - who are taking positive action on climate change and/or poverty.

Trakar said:
That said, the purpose of this thread is to discuss public policy with regard to addressing the problem and issues resulting from anthropogenic forced climate change.
Click to expand...

Which makes it all completely relevant.

People vote for policies.

How are Hillary's? Do they go all the way to what's required from USA?

I'm betting no on that.

Trakar said:
So far, I've mentioned both a target policy to impact one of the primary problems forcing and worsening AGW...
Click to expand...

We can all make up scenarios that would work, but as you noted, the thread is about US politics, so actual policies being promoted politicians would be a lot more sensible than some fantasy.

Minoosh said:
Not much help to be on the beach if levels keep rising.

ETA: Anyone know off the bat how much levels would rise if the icecaps melted?
Click to expand...

That's one of the better questions, because it's unknown.

Somewhere between 15 centimetres and a metre - your guess is good as mine. The problem is not just the rise, but storm surges, which will have a much greater impact, so you'd probably need to double the amount of bare increase to see where the beach would need to be.

Minoosh said:
One poster I associate with conservatism says AGW is wildly overblown and policymakers need not address it; another is saying it's too late to alter the trend with policy so why bother.
Click to expand...

I think the latter is more likely to be correct. Most of the recent scientific opinion I've seen says we've passed the tipping point, but they could all be wrong.

The funny part is, a single, cataclysmic volcanic eruption could halt or even reverse the warming.

That's why FEMA is sniffing around the Jellystone caldera - when the climate gets too hot and Califonia's a burnt-out shell they're going to make it blow.
 
Trakar said:
Who is the "we" you refer to repeatedly?
Personally, professionally, and with regard to national and international, public policy, I and most of the people I know personally, strive to reduce suffering and death, improve the health and enhance the opportunities for education, personal development and economic security for all people.
Click to expand...

"We" is obviously humanity. There exist many well-off countries, and some super-rich countries in the world. Yet 3 million kids die a year from easily treatable conditions.

And you expect those same countries to give up fossil fuels for some nebulous danger decades down the road? It won't happen. We will continue to export coal, continue to frack every last drop of oil domestically, and continue to consume products at rates that would make a Medici Prince blush.

Any plan that ignores human nature is bound to fail.
 
Yep, and human nature along with history tells us that we will fail to act until the problem becomes so severe that we are forced to act. A couple of people have mentioned geo-engineering, and that strikes me as the most likely direction we would take once that tipping point is reached. The research currently being done is pretty theoretical (as one would expect when it comes to ideas that include releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, or orbiting giant reflectors...) but impending doom would force the issue. Of course, with our poor track record of messing with the environment, any such move would likely result in unanticipated catastrophic consequences. So yeah, we're doomed. :(
 
The Atheist said:
Except it does in most cases. That's why charities struggle to get the money to fix the problems - problems which could be solved with just a few billion dollars.

The vast majority of people choose to do nothing. That is the default position.

Stop trying to change it - buy some cheap land now about 100 miles inland from NYC. Your great-great grandkids will be trillionaires, owning beachfront property there.
Click to expand...
"It can be solved with billions of dollars." Source?

"Vast mahority of people do nothing."
Well, thats because the vast majority, like 99% of the american population, combined, only owns 60% of the nations wealth. The vast majority of people CANT do anything, because the vast majority of people only have enough wealth to see after themselves.

I always find it funny when big corporations ask their customers to donate money to some charity or other. I always refuse. That corporation can easily afford to donate $1000 much easier than I can donate $1.

I once spoke with the head manager of a local grocery store, because week after week, theu were trying to get me to add another dollar ti my grocery bill. I told the guy that he needs.to quit bugging his customers who can only afford to live off ramen noodles, and just have corporate donate a dollar for.every receipt they print out, and to tell his district manager to pass the word upstairs. Fat lot that probably did. Although, the store did seem to quick begging for an extra buck.

God damn.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Fudbucker said:
"We" is obviously humanity. There exist many well-off countries, and some super-rich countries in the world. Yet 3 million kids die a year from easily treatable conditions.

And you expect those same countries to give up fossil fuels for some nebulous danger decades down the road?...
Click to expand...

No, I expect nothing from countries, ...which are not thinking, living, or decision making individuals. As for your perspective on humanity, it seems more self-reflective than objective.

I am of the considered opinion, and life experience, that while people often work to improve and better their own lives, they also devote a considerable amount of their time and effort into improving and protecting their families, neighbors, communities. Beyond this, many, if not most, citizens of this nation believe that people who are not citizens of this nation, their economies, and their health and welfare are worth substantial private and public investment and donation to support and protect. Given this, I fully expect that the bulk of humanity will support public policy actions to address the problem and effects of anthropogenically forced climate change.

The primary thing I am unsure of, is how long it will take to begin the serious efforts, and how much it will cost, as every day that passes adds ~100M tons of fossil carbon to our problem (at a rate that is still increasing).
 
Nihilianth said:
"It can be solved with billions of dollars." Source?
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious really. Every problem can be solved with money - and with enough of money, it would be simple to set up infrastructure to supply people in extreme poverty with the essentials of life.

Nihilianth said:
"Vast mahority of people do nothing."
Well, thats because the vast majority, like 99% of the american population, combined, only owns 60% of the nations wealth. The vast majority of people CANT do anything, because the vast majority of people only have enough wealth to see after themselves.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Almost all of the people who donate to charity aren't 1%ers.

Standards of living are the highest they've been in human history and the idea that most people could not afford $1 or $2 per week if they wanted to is absurd.
 
stanfr said:
Yep, and human nature along with history tells us that we will fail to act until the problem becomes so severe that we are forced to act. A couple of people have mentioned geo-engineering, and that strikes me as the most likely direction we would take once that tipping point is reached. The research currently being done is pretty theoretical (as one would expect when it comes to ideas that include releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, or orbiting giant reflectors...) but impending doom would force the issue. Of course, with our poor track record of messing with the environment, any such move would likely result in unanticipated catastrophic consequences. So yeah, we're doomed. :(
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, most geoengineering schemes considered so far, run a great risk of causing as much harm as they prevent and generally tend to only mask some aspects of the problem rather than solve the problem. If any thing happens which causes you to stop the masking (anytime over the next several thousand years) things will get very hot very quickly. I have no problem with a functional, safe geoengineering system that would actually be cheap, easy to set in motion, and wouldn't cause as much damage as it prevents, but this doesn't fit any of the systems yet proposed or devised, that I am aware of.
 
stanfr said:
Yep, and human nature along with history tells us that we will fail to act until the problem becomes so severe that we are forced to act. A couple of people have mentioned geo-engineering, and that strikes me as the most likely direction we would take once that tipping point is reached. The research currently being done is pretty theoretical (as one would expect when it comes to ideas that include releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, or orbiting giant reflectors...) but impending doom would force the issue. Of course, with our poor track record of messing with the environment, any such move would likely result in unanticipated catastrophic consequences. So yeah, we're doomed. :(
Click to expand...

THis was a fascinating interview on the topic of geoengineering and they come to a similar concusion: http://climatedesk.org/2015/03/we-c...th-this-fix-but-its-probably-a-terrible-idea/

Its risky with unknown consequences, but our risk calculations may change if a few degrees of cooling could all of a sudden mean that we could feed millions more people and we're at 2080 and our staple crops are at serious risk. Then, we may find all of a sudden that geoengineering is far more palatable, cause the risk of not doing that means starving wealthy countries with a lot to lose...

I'm with you on your first statement with respect to human nature - and I find a useful analogue is the addict right. They don't change until the costs of their behaviour rise to a very high threshold - and sometimes not even then. The stakeholders profiting from the status quo don't have enough direct harm to their interests yet - and since they plan for the next quarter and not the next quarter century - why would we expect anything different?

THis is the dilemma of a global problem facing a fractured humanity, divided up into around 200 autonomous nations with thousands more corporations acting like little fiefdoms themselves - the answer requires a collective response, and we're not just set up for that.

But bury the eastern seaboard under a few feet of water, helicopter gunships patrolling to shoot up the boat people emigrating from places where life isn't possible anymore - ratchet up the human crisis a few notches and maybe we will incentivize the kind of collective response we need.

I wonder if we'll do it in time. Part of me thinks we need to experience a lot of pain before we can uproot our current methods and adopt the ones that are more sustainable - there's too much profit being made, too much at stake, and the real danger doesn't feel close enough to galvanize action. Long before the environment becomes physically unlivable, the stresses on our production and resources will create "human change" from "climate change" - and this will mean even places with potentially nicer environments under Global Warming, like Canada, can expect to deal with the impacts of a pressing humanity before they experience the impacts of a pressing environment. I've always thought that our discourse should connect the environmental crisis to the human crisis it will engender - as Pentagon planners and security professionals have been thinking about for a few decades now.

I think over course of my lifetime I may begin to see that context arising - but even that may not happen fully til after I pass (I'm currently 34 - and feel lucky to be 34 today and not 12)
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
No, I expect nothing from countries, ...which are not thinking, living, or decision making individuals. As for your perspective on humanity, it seems more self-reflective than objective.

I am of the considered opinion, and life experience, that while people often work to improve and better their own lives, they also devote a considerable amount of their time and effort into improving and protecting their families, neighbors, communities. Beyond this, many, if not most, citizens of this nation believe that people who are not citizens of this nation, their economies, and their health and welfare are worth substantial private and public investment and donation to support and protect. Given this, I fully expect that the bulk of humanity will support public policy actions to address the problem and effects of anthropogenically forced climate change.

The primary thing I am unsure of, is how long it will take to begin the serious efforts, and how much it will cost, as every day that passes adds ~100M tons of fossil carbon to our problem (at a rate that is still increasing).
Click to expand...

Well, we both agree on the problem, but I think we're miles apart on the solution. But, for humanity's sake, I hope you're right.
 
Yes and I think the most likely scenario is we DO get hurt enough to change our way, and through combination of learning our lessons and lower economic activity and population, begin to at least stop contributing any more to the acceleration of the problem

However given the feedback loops and delayed response of the climate to our inputs, were we to turn all pollution to zero tomorrow the warming process would continue for hundreds of years.

So I think it is most likely that the mending of our ways will come too late - the question is how late, and how uncomfortable will we be with our amazing new tech to protect us while the environment carries on responding a long while?

This is where I think a Geo engineering solution is the only solution that can sustain equivalent conditions to what we enjoy today.

Absent this kind of work, the writing is already on the wall. Perhaps the real question is how much of a technical basis will we have to execute such plans if our society becomes extraordinarily stressed before the tech is ready?
 
Praktik said:
Yes and I think the most likely scenario is we DO get hurt enough to change our way, and through combination of learning our lessons and lower economic activity and population, begin to at least stop contributing any more to the acceleration of the problem

However given the feedback loops and delayed response of the climate to our inputs, were we to turn all pollution to zero tomorrow the warming process would continue for hundreds of years.

So I think it is most likely that the mending of our ways will come too late - the question is how late, and how uncomfortable will we be with our amazing new tech to protect us while the environment carries on responding a long while?

This is where I think a Geo engineering solution is the only solution that can sustain equivalent conditions to what we enjoy today.

Absent this kind of work, the writing is already on the wall. Perhaps the real question is how much of a technical basis will we have to execute such plans if our society becomes extraordinarily stressed before the tech is ready?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Fudbucker said:
"We" is obviously humanity. There exist many well-off countries, and some super-rich countries in the world. Yet 3 million kids die a year from easily treatable conditions.

And you expect those same countries to give up fossil fuels for some nebulous danger decades down the road? It won't happen. We will continue to export coal, continue to frack every last drop of oil domestically, and continue to consume products at rates that would make a Medici Prince blush.

Any plan that ignores human nature is bound to fail.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely spot on, its why so many on the left fail in their policies. The first mistake they made in AGW was making it political and forgetting about how so many on both sides depend on fossil fuels. As if they could wave a magic wand to immediately bring on renewables.

IMO its also true they care more about the environment than human lives.
 
Praktik said:
So I think it is most likely that the mending of our ways will come too late - the question is how late, and how uncomfortable will we be with our amazing new tech to protect us while the environment carries on responding a long while?
Click to expand...

Very good post - nice to see people without rose-tinted spectacles on the subject.

logger said:
IMO its also true they care more about the environment than human lives.
Click to expand...

While I agree that lots of Greenmunists act that way, it's an overstatement and blatant mis-characterisation to say that's what they feel.

You're confusing the desire to save the environment for the benefit of people, and if it hadn't been made a political issue, we wouldn't have made the little progress we have.

You could probably apply your thinking to Greenpeace and PETA and other fringe groups, but blaming "the left" for anything being screwed up is almost victim-blaming.

The left's big mistake was thinking people would give a crap.
 
The Atheist said:
Very good post - nice to see people without rose-tinted spectacles on the subject.



While I agree that lots of Greenmunists act that way, it's an overstatement and blatant mis-characterisation to say that's what they feel.

You're confusing the desire to save the environment for the benefit of people, and if it hadn't been made a political issue, we wouldn't have made the little progress we have.

You could probably apply your thinking to Greenpeace and PETA and other fringe groups, but blaming "the left" for anything being screwed up is almost victim-blaming.

The left's big mistake was thinking people would give a crap.
Click to expand...

People care, but only to the extent that it doesn't inconvenience them much, and the further the problem is (in time as well as distance), the less inclined we are to do anything about it.

For Trakar's point to be true, there would have to be evidence of people depriving themselves of a great deal to help strangers in far-off lands. While this happens occasionally, it's an exception to the rule.

Logger has a good point that an abrupt transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources would upend economies and create massive short-term suffering. More people may die from the resulting economic slow-down, than would ever be killed by the effects of warming.

Unless the warming wipes out the whole species. Which I think it probably will. Which is why I say focus on geo-engineering, so we can pour sulfur-dioxide into the air and go on our merry way.
 
Fudbucker said:
Logger has a good point that an abrupt transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources would upend economies and create massive short-term suffering. More people may die from the resulting economic slow-down, than would ever be killed by the effects of warming.
Click to expand...
No, he's wrong. We are already transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources, and I bet it will only take a few years to become 'abrupt'.

The last 'economic slow-down' we had was a result of trying to maintain a supply of fossil fuel. The Iraq war has cost us over $2 trillion so far, and is projected to eventually reach $6 trillion. Imagine if we had spent that on transitioning to renewables - instead of a continuing drag on the economy we would now be raking in free energy.

As for people dying, they are already being killed by fossil fuels.

Air pollution in China is killing 4,000 people every day

4,000 people per day! Imagine if 1,000 people per day were were being killed in the US by something like Ebola or terrorism - you think we would sit back and do nothing, because to respond might cause an 'economic slow-down'? People are talking about building a wall that could cost $30 billion per year just to keep out a few Mexicans! If only they could see the real threat...

Unless the warming wipes out the whole species. Which I think it probably will.
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely. We could lose 99.999% of our population to warming and still not be in any danger of going extinct.

Which is why I say focus on geo-engineering, so we can pour sulfur-dioxide into the air and go on our merry way.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent idea - if you want to kill even more people.
 
Fudbucker said:
People care, but only to the extent that it doesn't inconvenience them much, and the further the problem is (in time as well as distance), the less inclined we are to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Correct again, and nothing's further away from people's reality than kids who haven't even been conceived yet.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No, he's wrong. We are already transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources, and I bet it will only take a few years to become 'abrupt'.
Click to expand...

No I'm not and no we aren't. Coal is still the number one energy around the world. Oil is still the number one fuel for transportation by far, do you know why? Because its so very much cheaper and less damaging than anything else.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret, a few degrees here and there is going to eventually be proven to be nothing, this AGW is going to keep moving forward painfully slow, as technology catches up, science will be able to prove man cannot and never has been able to effect weather. Plus, the poor are hurt the most by rising energy costs, so much that they'd like the rich countries of the world to pay billions. Billions we simply don't have as we go into massive debt.

Once the impending wars get started from massive debt and energy, AGW will be completely forgotten.
 
The Atheist said:
You're confusing the desire to save the environment for the benefit of people, and if it hadn't been made a political issue, we wouldn't have made the little progress we have.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need saving, the Earth is not fragile, it's a very violent and dangerous place, human beings living their lives is not hurting the environment.

The reason why I can say it is cheap energy is a major factor in lifting the poor out of poverty, it is one of the major factors of why the US is so prosperous.

The reason so many leftist are involved with this is because its a great way to control the masses. Its why so many old time communists have moved to the Global Warming hoax, the new power frontier.
 
logger said:
It doesn't need saving, the Earth is not fragile, it's a very violent and dangerous place, human beings living their lives is not hurting the environment.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid comment on two different levels.

I didn't mention the Earth, so whether it will survive isn't part of the discussion. (I have no doubt the Earth will outlive humans by hundreds of millions of years at least)

The environment is what we live in. Saying we're not hurting it by living our lives is absurd. That's exactly what is harming it.
 
logger said:
It doesn't need saving, the Earth is not fragile, it's a very violent and dangerous place, human beings living their lives is not hurting the environment.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like ideology than science.

Coal is still the number one energy around the world. Oil is still the number one fuel for transportation by far, do you know why? Because its so very much cheaper and less damaging than anything else.
Click to expand...

Less damaging than anything else? Can you back this up with numbers?
 
The other issue, with respect to our ability to respond to global warming had less to do with our technical ability and the resources we can put behind it - heck, we can do some crude geoengineering right now if we want. Doesn't take much to shoot particles up in the air and we are doing so in an unorganized and global fashion *already* we'd just be doing a bit more of the right particles to help us out, a la Pinatubo...

But i've been getting deeper and deeper into GMO politics and debates after specializing in vaccine related debates - I've been following the chemtrail crowd's mutation from anti-jet-contrail to "geoengineering watch"

Who is to say that advanced techniques to help us weather Global Warming (pun intended), such as more resilient GMO crops and geo-engineering techniques - who is to say that we'll even have the *political* will to use the solutions we have at hand?

This is more likely to be our fight and the fight of the next few generations, would forecast more political than technological blockages for next 100 years or so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom