Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Kenomac;2004878]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In other words.... A socialist redistribution of wealth tax on the wealthy and business.

You must be alliterate to get that from the post.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, I'm really sad that the issue of AGW has only triggered an anti-intellectual backlash of denial/dismissal.

It's also sad to watch otherwise smart people fall for the biggest Scam in Science History since the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus.

Labeling people you disagree with as "Anti-Intellectual" when some of them are Scientists holding US Patents in Pollution control (Ahem...like I do) is just as ridiculous as my calling MMGW followers as Cultists. I use the Cultist line to throw back the "denier and Anti-Intellectual" game the MMGW folks like to play to highlight it's stupidity.

Strange...they don't like it too much when their tactics are turned around on them...who would have thought...

69 Pages and not a opinion Changed a bridge of understanding built....who are the Smarter ones:
Those who have lived in this Thread posting away as if the fact of the Carbon Soaked World depended on it or those that have laughed at it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

If we could only all just think the exact same way and get along . . . .

Feeling persecuted by all this disagreeable debate & discussion?

Hey, this is CF. "Sailing Anarchy" - but nice

Customer: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Customer: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Customer: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Customer: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Customer: But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Customer: No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Customer: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
Customer: Now look!
Mr Vibrating: (pressing the bell on his desk) That's it. Good morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's also sad to watch otherwise smart people fall for the biggest Scam in Science History since the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus.

Labeling people you disagree with as "Anti-Intellectual" when some of them are Scientists holding US Patents in Pollution control (Ahem...like I do) is just as ridiculous as my calling MMGW followers as Cultists. I use the Cultist line to throw back the "denier and Anti-Intellectual" game the MMGW folks like to play to highlight it's stupidity.

Strange...they don't like it too much when their tactics are turned around on them...who would have thought...

69 Pages and not a opinion Changed a bridge of understanding built....who are the Smarter ones:
Those who have lived in this Thread posting away as if the fact of the Carbon Soaked World depended on it or those that have laughed at it?

Glad you could join us.

To be clear, I've not labelled everyone who disagrees with me as anti-intellectual. Only the ones that have been patently anti-intellectual in their disagreement. (not referring to your patent, honest)

Speaking of which, I have not met many Scientists whose career plan was to spin out some patents, then retire early and spend it lobbing stinkers into AGW threads, but applied science is still science. So I've met one at least, then.

I also haven't resolved how you thought it was all fine to make some serious coin from a government mandate to clean up air pollution... but a government mandate to do something about AGW is the evil plot of a secret cult and the biggest Scam in Science History?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's also sad to watch otherwise smart people fall for the biggest Scam in Science History since the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus...

Do I understand correctly that you believe the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus, all to be science scams?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's also sad to watch otherwise smart people fall for the biggest Scam in Science History since the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus.

Third, you keep referring to the Big Bang theory as a scam that has been somehow disproven. This couldn't be further from the truth, as I and others have explained, yet you keep repeating it. Are you intentionally providing the best evidence for this "anti-intellectualism" you so despise? Or is this simply part of your little game you keep hinting at?

As for the other references, I'm unfamiliar with your population bomb, although I surmise it has something to do with warning about global population growth. This is a major problem when it comes to planetary resource use and pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions). I don't see the "scam" here either.

And of course peak oil is still an issue. Unless you think geological processes are keeping up with our use, fossil fuel will run out someday. This is a good example of how technology has kept pace with usage, but it's still a finite resource that has to end someday (like all non-renewable resources).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... a certain amount of skepticism that challenges the status quo is desirable & necessary. Figuring out when to challenge or when to accept often requires examining & questioning the motivations of the actors on all sides of an issue. Not sure why this admittedly messy, complex, confusing but ultimately indispensible process appears to be such a threat to some.

If skeptics were honestly engaging with the science and not off in the weeds puffing life into implausible science conspiracies and generally raging against all things green, I might think that there actually was an indispensible process going on. Instead... we have this.

S'ok, this is CF, not the UN. I shouldn't expect too much.

[Mike OReilly]

[QUOTE=Kenomac;2004878]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In other words.... A socialist redistribution of wealth tax on the wealthy and business.

Now, let's jump ahead 20-100 years and speculate as to what the future looks like.

Oh come on Ken ... really? Jack points to a real world, market-driven solution that is actually working, but b/c it requires laws, regulation and government action you dismiss it as "socialist redistribution." Really

You do realize all functioning market economies require heaps of laws, regulations and enforcement from government to work. As for "socialism", for the past 40 years there has been a massive redistribution of wealth, except it has been from the lower and middle financial classes to the upper and super-upper. Yes, socialism is alive and well in "free" market economies of the world, but it is socialism for the rich, and market discipline for the poor

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

In other words.... A socialist redistribution of wealth tax on the wealthy and business.

There it is! SOSHULIST!

Everybody drink!

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, that's certainly a new one!



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I'll start worrying when there's a severe outbreak of people spontaneously combusting.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Very true in the broadest sense Gord, but also true that govts. often have to come up with problems before they can convince people to give them more money to find a fix. That's why a certain amount of skepticism that challenges the status quo is desirable & necessary. Figuring out when to challenge or when to accept often requires examining & questioning the motivations of the actors on all sides of an issue. Not sure why this admittedly messy, complex, confusing but ultimately indispensible process appears to be such a threat to some.

Very true, but what you're noting is the psychology of all organizations, not just governments. All governments, bureaucracies, corporations, companies, associations, charities, militaries, etc. have a tendency to expand their mandates and power, and fill the spaces available to them. It's a well-studied phenomena, and it is not limited to public institutions like government.

So absolutely, we should treat all claims with healthy skepticism. No one on either side of this discussion would disagree. Where we appear to disagree is when skepticism turns to dogmatism. When the predominance of evidence weighs so heavily on one side of a issue or question, it becomes harder and harder to understand continued doubt of core findings.

There is so much more that needs to be analysed and understood in the whole climate change issue that faces all of us. The scale of the impacts (as I think the original OP tries to get at ... if somewhat dubiously), who will be impacted, and to my mind, what mitigating actions can we take now that will have the most/best improvements.

Scientific and technological advances will no doubt continue to improve our civilization's capacity to respond to climate change, and all the arguably more direct threats we face (resource depletion, pollution, population, global equity, extreme weather events, etc.). However, perhaps I am too conservative a fellow, but I think putting our collective future in technological developments that might happen is a bit like using the lottery as a retirement strategy. It might happen, but it might not.

I prefer to work with what is known. We have all the necessary tools to change our collective future NOW if only we could find a way to move forward as a global civilization. This is where politics and vested interests dither and stall, b/c change is hard, disruptive and inevitably gores someone's ox.

[chala]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The development of those technologies, and our adaptation require that we recognize, and are motivated to mitigate, those problems.
We have to understand the disease, in order to innovate and implement the cure.

Those problems have all ready been recognised for a few years.
Some countries are more motivated than other to mitigate those problems.
They see people hunger for energy as one of the main if not the main problem.
For example they ban the uses of air-conditioner cooling in residential premises, have set energy reduction target for instance 7%, have shut down industry that have to much negative impact on the environment, require that solar thermal, solar PV, thermal storage be upgraded to more efficient technologies, ban anything that dump unnecessary heat into the environment, for instance fast chargers and so on.
These countries are determined, to cut down on the waste of energy, on reducing heat losses to the environment.
Technologies and principle to reduce heat losses already exist they only have to be implemented.
Earth glaciers needs to be preserved, they are essential for controlling the temperature of this planet.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

To be clear, I've not labelled everyone who disagrees with me as anti-intellectual. Only the ones that have been patently anti-intellectual in their disagreement.

Boy, is that statement revealing. I would suggest that anyone who resorts to the incessant labeling & oversimplifications that occasion your posts may not be smart enough to recognize whether someone's disagreement is intellectual or not.

If you are really so passionate about your positions, you may want to develop some deeper understanding of why people disagree with you. It's worth repeating that most are in agreement with the broad, overall goals for a healthier environment, but disagree with the means. Again, you can choose to indulge yourself in self-righteous indignation & condenscencion, or you can open your mind to why some people don't always accept the way you think, and maybe only then develop better tools to potentially sway them.

For example, we have had lengthy discussions about how the scientific consensus on AGW begins to unravel when it comes to possible impacts, and breaks down further on proposed solutions. Muckle tried to address this with regard to potential impacts (or not) on coral reefs, and I highlighted an article that discussed economic impacts. You summarily and angrily dismissed both. If you have other such impacts in mind, then by all means. Once one assumes that global warming is occurring and is man-made, you then need to answer those who ask "what then?" I've got news for you, the overwhelming human population of the planet is more concerned about their daily economic circumstances than almost anything else. Unless these concerns can be credibly addressed, any actual implementation of proposed solutions will be pure fantasy.

Simply dismissing any sort of push-back to the many complex scientific, political, economic, and social implications of MMGW as nothing more than people being anti-intellectual, uneducated, religious, conservative, American, Republicans, duped by oil co. propoganda, etc., etc. only reveals shallow thinking, narrow-mindedness, and the inability to take an honest look at what is motivating both sides. Dogma and inflexible ideology are the enemy of truth, and only with respect and humility does society have a chance of coming together to effect any needed change.

[Exile]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile
... a certain amount of skepticism that challenges the status quo is desirable & necessary...

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

With a purported 97-99.9% scientific consensus on AGW, which side claims the status quo?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do I understand correctly that you believe the "Population Bomb" and "Peak Oil" and the "Big Bang" Consensus, all to be science scams?

It's pretty obvious.....
A) At the current earth population it was predicted by the Population Bomb experts that we would die and starve to death...Scam.

B) The peak oiler used the fear game of running out of oil as a club to make us stop using the black evil stuff....scam. We have more oil today that we can use.

C) The Big Bang pushers said it was consensus... Settled science and scientists who pointed out flaws in the consensus were called Science Deniers (see the trend)...scam...the Big Bang is now just a popular TV show as the "science" behind it fell apart.