There is no Planet B

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

What is it we need to be cutting down on? Hmmm… oh yes:

World Population Clock: 7.3 Billion People (2015) - Worldometers

Not the population bomb fraud again...kinda like peak oil...these theories of doom forget aa little thing called technological advancement.

[Southern Star]

I am not a member of the cult and have taken a rational approach to climate chamge based upon two obvious truths:

1. The vast majority of climatologists from around the the world (including China, the epicenter of environmentalism) are conspiring together to falsify science in order to support the theory that CO2 emissions fuel climate change. As Kenomac points out, the billionaires who profit from this (unlike the paupers who profit from the oil industry, who are much smaller in number, much less powerful and in no way self-interested) are laughing all the way to the bank! Does any right-thinking person honestly believe that corporations such as Exxon and BP would risk harming our environment in order to increase profits? The Exxon Valdez and BP's Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spills were either fictions, or the result of the actions of eco-terrorists. Sadly, the cult won in those instances, bringing about additional unnecessary regulation of industries that have only our best interests at heart.

2. As Kenomac also points out, plants need CO2 in order to produce oxygen and from that it necessarily follows that the more CO2 we produce the better: we should be increasing, not reducing emissions if we want to save the planet! Talk of a balance in nature is just more cultish gibberish, unsupported by scientific evidence or common sense. We must remember that various species have become extinct over the years without any help from mankind.

Brad

[Rainh2o2]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

Very true, especially agriculture. And true again, nothing will change as in the end, money is the one and only motivator.

I do think it's kind of cute tho, humans thinking that signing some sort of agreement is going to impress mother nature.

She's rebooted this rock a few times before, and she'll do it again. All we're doing is fast forward the timeline a little.

So keep cruising, keep eating meat, keep flying. It doesn't really matter much in the end

Yep I agree. The human race is too near sited to change or even care. Like George Carlin said, the human race is on a slow decline. We will end up destroying ourselves before changing.

Do I care? Sure. But at this point what can I do? The powers that be are in control. My little 2 cents worth of opinion don't matter. I do what I can and try to do what's right by conserving and recycling but it won't really matter in the end when I'm gone.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Freemind

I'm offended by being called a "denier".
Redistribute the wealth of the free world to tyrants. That's all it's about

Bingo...
And that is their goal in using the term Denier. Label anyone who disagrees with the MMGW Cult as akin to Denying the Holocost and you shut them up. But remember that thread about the Cult of Likability? Conforming to groupthink is powerfull, except I dont play that game.

[Rainh2o2]

Originally Posted by tp12

Well said, Don.

Sent from my SM-T520 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Very good point

[bmz]

The biggest cause of CO2 emissions reduction is America’s fracking natural gas boom, not solar or wind power, according to a study by the Manhattan Institute.

The study shows that solar power is responsible for 1 percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for nearly 20 percent. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by 1,022 million tons, making them significantly lower than their peak in 2007. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, fracking has cut 13 tons.



Read more: Fracking, Not Renewables, Is Responsible For Emissions Reduction | The Daily Caller

[ArmyDaveNY]

I'd like to add something to my earlier comments. I agree that nothing will change due to this agreement/taxation scheme. That is a different thing however than saying nothing will change. Things are getting better. Engines, in particular auto and aircraft engines, are immensely more efficient than they were decades ago. More efficient equals cleaner. Coal power plants are much cleaner than they were years ago, or perhaps it's more accurate to say we capture more of the ash, pollutants, etc. than we did. The result is the same. Our air and waters are cleaner now then they've been in the past century, at least in the U.S., Europe, Australia, etc. Even the former Soviet Union is cleaning itself up. Certainly there's much more to be done and it's also true that many of the pollutants that are around will take a long time to "go away" or dissolve, degrade, break down, etc.


Here in New York City, I can still see smog coming from the huge cultural void of the suburbs. This however is so much cleaner than it was in the forties and fifties, when we looked sort of like London with its famous (or infamous) pea soup fog. It's also a lot cleaner than in the sixties and seventies when I was a kid.


I suspect that somehow we'll manage to muddle through it and adapt as needed.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by bmz

The biggest cause of CO2 emissions reduction is America’s fracking natural gas boom, not solar or wind power, according to a study by the Manhattan Institute.

The study shows that solar power is responsible for 1 percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for nearly 20 percent. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by 1,022 million tons, making them significantly lower than their peak in 2007. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, fracking has cut 13 tons.



Read more: Fracking, Not Renewables, Is Responsible For Emissions Reduction | The Daily Caller

That is called sweet irony, since the MMGWC thinks fracking is more evil than ISIS.
Just ask Bernie Sanders.

[GordMay]

Both sides of the debate have been involved in name calling.
People who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers”.
Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas”.
➥ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sc...in-a-name.html

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Rainh2o2

Very good point

Thank you

Sent from my SM-T520 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

That is called sweet irony, since the MMGWC thinks fracking is more evil than ISIS.
Just ask Bernie Sanders.

hey now, i don't care about your anti-MMGWC ramblings but throwing fracking in the mix is a bit to much.

if you want your ground water messed up by whatever chemical waste wins
the lottery, feel free, but leave mine alone.

you almost sound like you are selling bottled water.

and the Manhattan Institute sure sounds like a scientific source...

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's actually our children that are the problem. There's just too many of the little darlings. They are all going to consume resources, get new iPhones every two years, burn energy on phones, ipods, computers, TV's and who knows what other power consuming gadgets. They'll want to drive cars, be employed in energy chomping industries whilst chugging away on bottled water and so on and so forth. Maybe we do need this mythical planet B after all to hold this excess humanity?

And, do some of you guys not realise that human civilization has risen to its current zenith by burning fuels just about from day dot? It defines us as a species. Whilst it is all well and good to utilise alternative energies, there is no way that burning of fossil fuels can be entirely replaced, not now or in the near future. In fact wanting to shut down the very processes that give us this moment in history for no other reason than a bunch of "what if" reasons is just plain stupid, imo.

I completely agree. Our biggest problem is people pollution.

S/V Finlandia

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I am not a member of the cult and have taken a rational approach to climate chamge based upon two obvious truths:



Brad

Brad - You and Jonathan Swift would make a great team.

[Southern Star]

ArmyDave I tend to agree. However, your observations also support the need for government intervention: reduced emissions/improved fuel efficiency from vehicles was precipitated (indeed mandated) by government imposed regulations. Indeed, as you may recall the auto industry made dire predictions that they would never be able to meet the much stricter standards and produce affordable automobiles. Funny, because they have not only been able to meet those standards, but taking into account inflation and features/equipment, the average car is cheaper now than 20 years ago.

This, of course, should not be surprising. Prior to setting emission/fuel economy standards, the government imposed various safety standards that were also met with howls of protests by the auto industry. They spoke of the added weight and cost of manufacture and yet, once again we see that our current automobiles are not only more efficent and clean than ever before, they are also much safer.

Should we have left safety/fuel efficiency/emission standards to the auto industry, relying upon the laws of supply and demand to bring about improvements? As I recall, Ford Motor Company offered seat belts as an option in the late 50's and it turned out to be the least ordered item on their option lists. Had they upped their base price and included them as standard equipment, one wonders if they would have survived.

Brad

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And, do some of you guys not realise that human civilization has risen to its current zenith by burning fuels just about from day dot?

We started burning fossil fuels in abundance 250 years ago. Since then we have increased CO2 emissions from 10 million tonnes per annum to 30 billion tonnes per annum, trillions of tonnes of emissions that have accumulated.

Fossil fuels are also non-renewable.

The fossil fuel age will be a blip in the history of humans. We will move on to more sustainable forms of energy and us the remaining oil and gas as material feedstock.