Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Just providing a link to one view, similar to Jack's approach.

But I will say that having spent my formative years with open wood fires as the only heat in a single wall frame house, without indoor plumbing for potable water nor gray or black water, without electricity for much of the time (not widely available until after REA), with winter foods limited to those that were home canned or harvested on winter garden plots, and the daily routine set by the cutting and collection of wood and kindling for cooking and heating and the manual cranking of the pump windlass for drawing water from the shallow well that provided house and livestock needs, I don't long for the "good old days" before the widespread availability of oil and gas products and electrification, and the labor saving appliances that came with it. One entire day of the week that was set aside for clothes washing and drying requiring intense activity rather than sitting and waiting for the buzzer while "multi-tasking" has been freed up.

I know, I know...you walked barefoot nine miles in the snow uphill both ways to go to school in a one room schoolhouse after a full day's work...

Oh ya! Well I walked barefoot nine miles in the snow ... oh, I see you already knew that

Originally Posted by fryewe

Your "systemic approach" sounds like government control or taxation to encourage and discourage activities and products. With government's track record of (in)effectiveness and (in)efficiency, I'd prefer to take my chances with a market unencumbered by government.

And the "free" market has such a grand track record. You do realize that in large part it is the capitalist "free" market that has led to many of the environmental problems we now face (not just climate change).

So yes, absolutely. Bring on the government interventions. But also bring on the market solutions. We need both if we're actually going to address the global problems facing.

Originally Posted by StuM

And I don't see why we should condemn billions of the world's population to continue to live under those conditions on the unproven premise that a bit more CO2 in the air will destroy us all.

If WE lived with less, it would be more than possible to raise the standard of living for vast majority of the world's population. But this is something we'll never do.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

And I don't see why we should condemn billions of the world's population to continue to live under those conditions on the unproven premise that a bit more CO2 in the air will destroy us all.

Not a thing in there is accurate. No-one (credible) is saying that AGW will destroy us all, and we don't have to revert to the middle-ages to make a difference. Where are you getting all this dystopian nightmare stuff from?

[Eclipsed]

Don't try to reason prejudice out of a man (person), it was not reasoned into him and cannot be reasoned out.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not a thing in there is accurate. No-one (credible) is saying that AGW will destroy us all, and we don't have to revert to the middle-ages to make a difference. Where are you getting all this dystopian nightmare stuff from?

Skepticalscience says cc will destroy us.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Skepticalscience says cc will destroy us.

Sorry, went looking for your link in support of that... couldn't find it. Did you forget it?

Anyways..."Destroy us all"? Don't think they're saying that.

[Reefmagnet]

Here's another piece of data the deniers and most skeptics won't touch: simply survey every postdoc in climate science. Compared to crunching all the raw climate data, this would be orders of magnitude easier to achieve. Find all the serious institutions involved in climate research, contact all the PhDs on staff, ask a few questions:
- are you primarily involved in climate science? (Y/N)
- are you in agreement with the most recent conclusions reached by the IPCC? (Y/N)
- are you satisfied that the conclusions have been reached in accordance with best scientific practice? (Y/N)
- do you believe that these conclusions are serious enough and sufficient to justify global action to try to curb AGW? (Y/N)

If this was done, we could put the whole question of consensus to bed. (This is of course why no-one in the anti camp will bother to)

You need to add....
- Do you believe your current job would exist if AGW didn't? (Y/N)
- Do you own a car? (Y/N)
- Do you depend on fossil fuels for conducting and compiling your research? (Y/N)


I'm quite sure there's at least a few more similar questions that could be presented in order to establish "the truth".



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, went looking for your link in support of that... couldn't find it. Did you forget it?

Anyways..."Destroy us all"? Don't think they're saying that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Within the page above, read the section under the sub-title "The net result will be bad".

It gets expanded here....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...-negatives.htm

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, went looking for your link in support of that... couldn't find it. Did you forget it?

Anyways..."Destroy us all"? Don't think they're saying that.

What's your opinion on this presentation, LE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcxxhDVvTXU

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The Big Picture

Within the page above, read the section under the sub-title "The net result will be bad".

It gets expanded here....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...-negatives.htm

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The cartoons are Romper-Room level simplistic, but I especially like the pop-up with the meter running on the 2.3 billion-plus Hiroshima bombs worth of heat that have been dropped on the Earth since 1998.

[Capt Phil]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Just providing a link to one view, similar to Jack's approach.

But I will say that having spent my formative years with open wood fires as the only heat in a single wall frame house, without indoor plumbing for potable water nor gray or black water, without electricity for much of the time (not widely available until after REA), with winter foods limited to those that were home canned or harvested on winter garden plots, and the daily routine set by the cutting and collection of wood and kindling for cooking and heating and the manual cranking of the pump windlass for drawing water from the shallow well that provided house and livestock needs, I don't long for the "good old days" before the widespread availability of oil and gas products and electrification, and the labor saving appliances that came with it. One entire day of the week that was set aside for clothes washing and drying requiring intense activity rather than sitting and waiting for the buzzer while "multi-tasking" has been freed up.

I know, I know...you walked barefoot nine miles in the snow uphill both ways to go to school in a one room schoolhouse after a full day's work...

Your "systemic approach" sounds like government control or taxation to encourage and discourage activities and products. With government's track record of (in)effectiveness and (in)efficiency, I'd prefer to take my chances with a market unencumbered by government.

+1, Phil!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

The cartoons are Romper-Room level simplistic, but I especially like the pop-up with the meter running on the 2.3 billion-plus Hiroshima bombs worth of heat that have been dropped on the Earth since 1998.

I was going to refer LE to the bomb counter, but figured that was even too alarmist by alarmists standards ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You need to add....
- Do you believe your current job would exist if AGW didn't? (Y/N)
- Do you own a car? (Y/N)
- Do you depend on fossil fuels for conducting and compiling your research? (Y/N)


I'm quite sure there's at least a few more similar questions that could be presented in order to establish "the truth".

Yes, by all means let's add many more irrelevent questions and turn a straightforward survey for establishing a consensus into a conservative. anti-science, anti-AGW push-poll. If this was 60 years ago, an American named McCarthy could have used a smart guy like you.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The Big Picture

Within the page above, read the section under the sub-title "The net result will be bad".

Hmmm. Maybe my browser is seeing something different from yours?

The Net Result will be Bad

There will be some positive results of this continued warming. For example, an open Northwest Passage, enhanced growth for some plants and improved agriculture at high latitudes (though this will require use of more fertilizers), etc. However, the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives, by a long shot. We're talking decreased biodiversity, water shortages, increasing heat waves (both in frequency and intensity), decreased crop yields due to these impacts, damage to infrastructure, displacement of millions of people, etc.

I couldn't find destroy us all.

Second link:

The Big Picture

The big picture is that we know the planet is warming, humans are causing it, there is a substantial risk to continuing on our current path, but we don't know exactly how large the risk is. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the risk is not an excuse to ignore it. We also know that if we continue on a business-as-usual path, the risk of catastrophic consequences is very high. In fact, the larger the uncertainty, the greater the potential for the exceptionally high risk scenario to become reality. We need to continue to decrease the uncertainty, but it's also critical to acknowledge what we know and what questions have been resolved, and that taking no action is not an option. Th good news is that we know how to solve the problem, and that doing so will minimize the impact not only on the climate, but also on the economy.
The bottom line is that from every perspective - scientific, risk management, economic, etc. - there is no reason not to immeditately take serious action to mitigate climate change, and failing to do so would be exceptionally foolish.

mmmm... nope. no destroy us all here either.

D'you think maybe Stu is wrong about this? Might he also be wrong about positive action against AGW requiring total reversion to some agrarian subsistence nightmare?

[Boatguy30]

I'm sure that 100s of millions of displaced people will make for real nice civil anchorages.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, by all means let's add many more irrelevent questions and turn a straightforward survey for establishing a consensus into a conservative. anti-science, anti-AGW push-poll. If this was 60 years ago, an American named McCarthy could have used a smart guy like you.

If you ask a selected subset of carefully crafted questions, you can get whatever answers you want.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app