Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by chala

For example they ban the uses of air-conditioner cooling in residential premises.

Let Bernie Sanders and Hillary run on that Eco Imperialists platform.

You might as well let Trump pick out the White House curtains now, and then we are all doomed!!

[jtsailjt]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2004898]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You must be alliterate to get that from the post.

LOL, just a couple weeks ago another poster was trying to argue that someone he disagreed with wasn't very intelligent but in the process of trying to express that opinion, spelled it intelligant, thus bringing into question just who was most lacking in smarts. Now the above post! It must be so much fun that I think I want to try it myself! jackdale, you really need to learn to spel correctly before publicly suggesting that anyone else is illiterate!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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?

Three lines....three attacks from our supposed Intellectual.

See the game folks, you either bow down and confess Ala as your God or have your head chopped off. That's the way it works with radicals of an ideology. The ruse of discussion is only to give the appearance of thought, not to actually participate in it!

The moment opposing views are brought to the table, it's deemed a microagression and a "safe space" is needed free of challenge. The offender is then personally attacked as to deter anyone else from agreeing with that position and opening themselves up to similar attack and ridicule. NOT on the basis of fact or Science...but to dare oppose the orthodoxy of the day, saying the Emperor has no Clothes can get you killed in this culture.

Look, I know they (True MMGW Cultists) won't be open scientific discussions (remember I worked with them, along side of them, presented papers at their conferences...I know these people) so my approach is to expose their tactics of radical adherence to the religion over science and to do it with a great sense of humor, irony and fun...well that is just icing on the melting cake.

Mission Accomplished.....
Now where do I change out of this flight suit?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You must be alliterate to get that from the post.

Alliterate
al·lit·er·ate
əˈlidəˌrāt/
verb
(of a phrase or line of verse) contain words that begin with the same sound or letter.
"his first and last names alliterated"
use words that begin with the same sound or letter.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

I'm happy to edumacate you..

"The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s"

But really, if you don't know about the Population bomb Scam...how do you hope to lecture me on "Big Bang" or "Peak Oil"....ha..ahem...well Sir, thanks but I'll stick to the Physics Professors.

[newhaul]

Well there is another theory that is gaining momentum the rainbow gravity theory
Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider - Telegraph. bye bye big bang hello rainbow
Physicists Warming Up the LHC Accidentally Create a Rainbow Universe ? NOVA Next | PBS
Just something else to consider .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

I wouldn't disagree. The difference with many parts of govt. and in some cases nonprofits is reduced accountability. This is by no means a criticism of people who choose these careers (I did for a long while), but rather is the nature of these institutions and basic human frailty. Not all but many if not most people need some sort of external inducement to motivate themselves. In the absence of the incentives, disincentives, competition, and profit motive that more typically characterizes the private sector, govt. is often more susceptible to becoming inefficient and unaccountable to their constituencies. But I agree that just about any organization of human beings has the potential to become corrupted with its power, if that's what you mean. Like you, I'm glad that the fossil fuel interests aren't in charge of the research into CC, but I am glad that there are properly funded scientists out there challenging the consensus.

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.

Well, there seem to be quite a few who do seem to disagree that all claims should be treated with healthy skepticism. And whether you believe such skepticism has turned to dogmatism first depends on what side of the debate you are on. It then depends on which issue the predominance of the evidence weighs so heavily. When it comes to CC, I've been suggesting it should be more of a debate about the potential impacts and their solutions. There could be potential unanimity on the existence of AGW itself, but if the projected temp increase over the next 50-100 years won't have much impact, then the core finding of AGW could be deemed rather moot.

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.

Exactly. But these are areas where the scientific consensus is less unified, and science has correspondingly fewer answers on what mitigating actions should be taken. There are those who take the position that any impacts by man on the environment are undesirable and should therefore be mitigated, regardless of potential negative effects. While not without merit, this is where a lot of rational and well-intended people who otherwise believe the AGW consensus start to drop out.

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 think we first need to better determine whether the impacts from CC are the actual lottery we're betting on, and whether the costs of increased mitigation are worth pursuing given the uncertainties. But I also agree that there are many other good reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption & emissions, and it is beneficial to continue down that path. Provided we are honest with people about its true benefits & costs that is.

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.

We have all the tools now, and it's only a matter of collectively moving forward?? Just to take one recently contested example, where are the tools to keep the base power needs supplied to the Calgary power grid without maintaining its high dependence on coal & natural gas? And even if we figure this out, how does China and the rest of the developing world become convinced to follow our lead? What will induce China to replace the cheap energy from coal plants it is bringing online once/week and replace it with more expensive and less efficient renewable sources of energy?

I'd suggest the eventual answer is the same now as it always has been for human civilization, namely the type of technological advancements discussed in the article from the opening post of this thread.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Mike...
I'm happy to edumacate you..

"The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s"

So you're citing one book written in 1968 that made predictions that only came partially true. You do realize that one book does not make a scientific consensus, or do I need to "edumacate" you on that as well

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But really, if you don't know about the Population bomb Scam from a Scientific standpoint...you then how do you hope to lecture me on why the "Big Bang" or "Peak Oil"....hah..ahem...well Sir, thanks but I'll stick to the Physics Professors.

Name one "Physics Professor" which debunks the Big Bang Theory. Name your sources. You keep repeating this barefaced, outright lie as if by saying it over and over it will make it true.

And it's rather funny that you would personally attack me here, when you just finished complaining and deriding others over the same thing:

The moment opposing views are brought to the table, it's deemed a microagression and a "safe space" is needed free of challenge. The offender is then personally attacked as to deter anyone else from agreeing with that position and opening themselves up to similar attack and ridicule. ...

But I suppose you won't be able to see the irony.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So you're citing one book written in 1968 that made predictions that only came partially true. You do realize that one book does not make a scientific

What you are not understanding is that the Population Bomb Scam was as Cultlike in it following by Scientists AND laypeople back then as MMGW is today. It's a Great illustration, but then again, since you didn't know what it was, maybe you haven't had time to see the parallels yet, so you will be excused on this one. Test next week.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

And it's rather funny that you would personally attack me here, when you just finished complaining and deriding others over the same thing.
But I suppose you won't be able to see the irony.

You said you didn't know what the Population Bomb Scam was, so I saved you the horrors of a Google Search and posted the information for you. In your mind that is now a personal attack on you. Mike, if you want to play in the sand box please wear your safety glass because that charge is just ridiculous. Ironic...no, Ridiculous...yes.

[Kenomac]

Back to the original topic
Here's another relevant read:

Global Warming: Why We Don't Need To Worry Even If It's Really True - Investors.com

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Back to the original topic
Here's another relevant read:

Global Warming: Why We Don't Need To Worry Even If It's Really True - Investors.com

Great Read...
I liked the last Paragraph:

"We're not giving in to trendiness, pressure from celebrities and other faux climate experts, or struggling to be popular. We remain skeptics — not of science but of the hype, the politics, the exaggerations, the cooked temperature record and the wild claims that have been made about man-caused climate change. The science is ongoing — and no more settled than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well there is another theory that is gaining momentum the rainbow gravity theory
Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider - Telegraph. bye bye big bang hello rainbow
Physicists Warming Up the LHC Accidentally Create a Rainbow Universe ? NOVA Next | PBS
Just something else to consider .

Interesting results. I eagerly await the actual experiments. So called "rainbow gravity" has been around for over a decade as yet another attempt to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. It has some very interesting possible outcomes, including the removal of those pesky singularities that keep popping up in current physics. The idea is not even a theory yet in that it's no where near fully fleshed out. And my reading of the papers are that it simply replaces one infinite (a singularity) with another (infinite time). The limits of physics have always been infinites, which in the primitive past we called god or ala or the big bobonu. It's why physicists can be pretty sure what we think we know about the universe is very incomplete. This is how science works.

BTW, rainbow theory has already been superseded by those working on something called relative locality, which is to argue that the location of an event in spacetime will take place in different places depending on the location of the observer. It's all very interesting theoretical physics, but at this point that's all it is, theoretical.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Back to the original topic
Here's another relevant read:

Global Warming: Why We Don't Need To Worry Even If It's Really True - Investors.com

Boy, was that ever well-timed to the current thread discussion. You must have planned it. It's short -- think L-E might actually read it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Three lines....three attacks from our supposed Intellectual.

Don't be so touchy. One innocent pun and two attacks.

Do unto others as ye would be done by. Think about it.

Seriously, tell us why it's not hypocritical for you to have partaken and profited from one ecological crisis, but are entitled to throw thunderbolts at this one?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

What you are not understanding is that the Population Bomb Scam was as Cultlike in it following by Scientists AND laypeople back then as MMGW is today. It's a Great illustration, but then again, since you didn't know what it was, maybe you haven't had time to see the parallels yet, so you will be excused on this one. Test next week.

Again, I see one book making a prediction that was partially correct. The parallel, as I research this historic event (guess I'm a bit younger than you Third), seems to be that it was a headline briefly picked up by the popular press, but had no traction in the scientific community.

You're right, the parallels are there around the current faux climate change debate. In the scientific community these discussions are nearly completely absent b/c the research is clear. Meanwhile in the popular media we continue to have these discussions. Thanks for showing the connection .

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You said you didn't know what the Population Bomb Scam was, so I saved you the horrors of a Google Search and posted the information for you. In your mind that is now a personal attack on you. Mike, if you want to play in the sand box please wear your safety glass because that charge is just ridiculous. Ironic...no, Ridiculous...yes.

I guess in your world ridicule is not a form of personal attack. A pretty insular little world you appear to live in.