Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The poorest 4 billion certainly do have advantages provided by the technologies of the richest 1 billion. I recently watched a documentary about Crappistan that showed some of the local tribesman using cell phones. Geez, all of them had cellphones.... no running water, open sewers, mud houses complete with indoor livestock.... but they all had cellphones. I guess the turd word needs to get their priorities in order? Hard to visualize this gang getting behind lowering CO2 emissions.

The is an example of a leaping technologies. They are saving a whole of copper wire that we use for land lines.

They can also leap over fossil fuels as an energy source.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Note that the Concept of Nation Building is a dirty word these days after the momentous failures on the Middle Easy...yet...we are to believe the Eco-imperialist aspiration of the Left will work out?

Na....when will the Colonial nature of the left stop in trying to impose their views on the good poor people of the world? What next imposing religious views?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress is also an excellent read.

and listen.



It was the Massey Lecture in 2004.



The 2004 CBC Massey Lectures, "A Short History of Progress" - Home | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio

Yes. Excellent set of lectures and an even better book.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That point was, and is, kind of bogus. Most of the people who are against action on AGW are equally down on anything else green, too. The other issues aren't 'blocked' by AGW, they will never make it to the starting gate with those people. We did pretty much see and discuss this here, no? We should all try to keep up.

No, I don't think we did see & discuss this here, L-E. Just the opposite, actually, but I can understand why you would choose to forget it. Muckle instigated the discussion about coral reefs, explictly acknowledged that he accepted the existence of AGW, but explained why he thought the publicity, politicization, & undue emphasis on CC was stymying action on more immediate & pressing environmental issues. Others followed by bringing up over-fishing, over-harvesting of sharks, the increase in floating plastic, etc.

I would hazard a guess that the opposite of your extremely biased & simplistic thinking is true, namely that most of the sailors on this thread who are skeptical about AGW care deeply about other environmental issues. I know this doesn't fit neatly into one of your categories or stereotypes, but the CC agenda makes it all too easy to become an adherent without actually having to do much of anything to make a difference.

I suspect this is what motivated Ken to ask specifically what you & others signed up for the entire AGW program were doing to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels. Thus far only Mike seems to be walking the walk by living on his boat using electricity powered by solar & wind. But ironically, Ken has solar panels powering 70% of his electrical needs for half the year (even though they are not cost-efficient), and lives on his boat the other half. And it sounds like Third Day -- our most strident cynic -- lives on his boat year round on a mooring!

What's the saying? Be wary of those who cast the first stone . . . or something like that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, I don't think we did see & discuss this here, L-E. Just the opposite, actually, but I can understand why you would choose to forget it.

If you go through the thread, list who are the most vehemently opposed to AGW, then do the same for who are loudly anti- the 'green' movement (in some cases despite having tested the alternatives themselves)... the matchup is pretty tight. I'm betting this relationship extends into the general public as well. They're vocally opposed, and probably voting against parties with greener agendas. There's your block. It's not the AGW debate.

I would hazard a guess that the opposite of your extremely biased & simplistic thinking is true, namely that most of the sailors on this thread who are skeptical about AGW care deeply about other environmental issues.

I agree that most sailors are ecologically aware and concerned... but many still are vocally anti-green in policy choices. A flotilla of frugal naysayers isn't going to advance any cause, much.

I suspect this is what motivated Ken to ask specifically what you & others signed up for the entire AGW program were doing to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels. Thus far only Mike seems to be walking the walk by living on his boat using electricity powered by solar & wind. But ironically, Ken has solar panels powering 70% of his electrical needs for half the year (even though they are not cost-efficient), and lives on his boat the other half. And it sounds like Third Day -- our most strident cynic -- lives on his boat year round on a mooring!

As above, and just a pissing contest. I suspect Kenomac is being a bit coy about how much he's actually out of pocket vs how much he's writing off (business/rental deductions), but he still took the step, no question.

btw - your anti-"anti-intellectualism" labelling and now near constant ad-hominems: how are they different from my so-called bias, argument-wise? u still mad, bro?

You made a really great post a couple of days ago, very insightful, not an ounce of troll... rather than respond from the hip, I've been mulling over the most constructive way to reply... but hey, if everything I write is just a springboard for shots, there's maybe no point.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The is an example of a leaping technologies. They are saving a whole of copper wire that we use for land lines.

They can also leap over fossil fuels as an energy source.

Watching the locals in Crappistan put down their cellphones and Ak47s long enough the come together and build a nuclear reactor will be a sight to behold.

I can't foresee that happening in the next 1000 years, let alone the next 20.

[GoingWalkabout]

What I am for:

1. Clean drinking water
2. Clean oceans
3. Clean air
4. Sustainable food production
5. Bio diversity
6. Sustainable population
7. Increased energy efficiency

What I am against

1. Toxic waste
2. Air pollution
3. Water pollution
4. Dirty water
5. Dirty oceans
6. Over fishing
7. Wasteful land management
8. Intemperate climate
9. Stupid people
10. Wasteful resource and energy management

Now what box do I fit into?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

What I am for:

1. Clean drinking water
2. Clean oceans
3. Clean air
4. Sustainable food production
5. Bio diversity
6. Sustainable population
7. Increased energy efficiency

What I am against

1. Toxic waste
2. Air pollution
3. Water pollution
4. Dirty water
5. Dirty oceans
6. Over fishing
7. Wasteful land management
8. Intemperate climate
9. Stupid people
10. Wasteful resource and energy management

Now what box do I fit into?

"everybody". You're with everybody.

These are called 'motherhoods', because like motherhood, we're hard-pressed to find anyone who'll disagree.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

What I am for:

1. Clean drinking water
2. Clean oceans
3. Clean air
4. Sustainable food production
5. Bio diversity
6. Sustainable population
7. Increased energy efficiency

What I am against

1. Toxic waste
2. Air pollution
3. Water pollution
4. Dirty water
5. Dirty oceans
6. Over fishing
7. Wasteful land management
8. Intemperate climate
9. Stupid people
10. Wasteful resource and energy management

Now what box do I fit into?

I'd agree with the above and add deforestation as it's own list item.

Much to the the chagrin of alarmists, only you pro points 3 and 7 and against points 2 and 10 really relate directly issues of anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps point 8 also, depending on the interpretation of "intemperate" and the debate as to whether weather is climate or otherwise.

If only the media would let up a bit on climate change and air some of these other problems with as much vigour, perhaps people would start thinking twice about drinking and eating from single use containers, consuming products containing palm oil and so on and so forth.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"everybody". You're with everybody.

These are called 'motherhoods', because like motherhood, we're hard-pressed to find anyone who'll disagree.

Sorry Walkabout, but I think what L-E is trying to tell you (in code) is that this only qualifies you for probationary membership in the "club." But you were close -- just not sufficiently ALL in.

Like Reefmagnet, I agree with both your lists. But then I'm with Groucho and would never belong to any club that would have me as a member.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If only the media would let up a bit on climate change and air some of these other problems with as much vigour, perhaps people would start thinking twice about drinking and eating from single use containers, consuming products containing palm oil and so on and so forth.

Another two pages and everyone will be saying that CC-advocacy CAUSES the other pollutions.

Reef, what do you think the eco-advocates were on about before AGW? I don't recall them getting any love then, either.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

What I am for:

1. Clean drinking water
2. Clean oceans
3. Clean air
4. Sustainable food production
5. Bio diversity
6. Sustainable population
7. Increased energy efficiency

What I am against

1. Toxic waste
2. Air pollution
3. Water pollution
4. Dirty water
5. Dirty oceans
6. Over fishing
7. Wasteful land management
8. Intemperate climate
9. Stupid people
10. Wasteful resource and energy management

Now what box do I fit into?

Let's not box ourselves in.

The GHG qualities of CO2 have been known since the 19th century. The GHG qualities of that CO2 is what has prevented the earth from being a ball of ice.

For billions of years CO2 levels were lowered as carbon was sequestered in the form of of fossil fuels. For the past 800,000 years or more CO2 levels naturally fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm in a nice natural cycle. Temperatures fluctuated in concert with those CO2 levels.

In 1751 there were 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon (11 million tonnes of CO2) emitted. In 2011 there were 9,449 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon (34,649 million tonnes of CO2) emitted. CO2 is persistent. Over that time span, we emitted 373,729 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon (1,370,464 million tonnes of CO2). Using carbon isotope analysis. the 40% increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution can be traced directly to the burning of fossil fuels.

The nice natural cycles of the previous 800,000 years or more no longer are in play.

In addition to surface air temperatures rising, the oceans are experiencing higher temperatures and lower pH levels. The net melting of cryosphere will increase sea levels displacing those living in coastal areas. As well that melting, especially of the Greenland ice sheet, will have an impact on ocean currents.

It is hard to believe such changes are sustainable.

Rather than wishful thinking about technological band-aid solutions, I am of the belief that we should go to the route of the problem.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you go through the thread, list who are the most vehemently opposed to AGW, then do the same for who are loudly anti- the 'green' movement (in some cases despite having tested the alternatives themselves)... the matchup is pretty tight. I'm betting this relationship extends into the general public as well. They're vocally opposed, and probably voting against parties with greener agendas. There's your block. It's not the AGW debate.

It's hard to resist the classifications & categorizations, no? So much simpler to figure who the true believers really are, and thus who the enemy is. Since you are so fond of this approach, I would ask you to define what the "green movement" actually is, and what you mean by parties with "greener agendas." I know there was a capital G "Green Party" in Europe for a long while, but other than that I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that most sailors are ecologically aware and concerned... but many still are vocally anti-green in policy choices. A flotilla of frugal naysayers isn't going to advance any cause, much.

OK, this is even more bizarre. According to you, it's not good enough to merely be a sailor who is "ecologically aware and concerned," if you also happen to not be sufficiently "green" in policy choices. Again, sounds like all or nothing, except we still don't know what "all" includes. Aren't you just simply validating Third Day's many comments about "cultish" behavior?

As above, and just a pissing contest. I suspect Kenomac is being a bit coy about how much he's actually out of pocket vs how much he's writing off (business/rental deductions), but he still took the step, no question.

I'm certainly not privy to Ken's personal finances. Are you?

You seem to be the least tolerant of anyone here who advocates the existence of AGW and is concerned about its impacts. Given your unyielding position and seeming inability to grasp other points of view, I thought it only fair to ask what you might be doing personally to reduce your resource consumption or, if you prefer, "carbon footprint."

btw - your anti-"anti-intellectualism" labelling and now near constant ad-hominems: how are they different from my so-called bias, argument-wise? u still mad, bro?

You made a really great post a couple of days ago, very insightful, not an ounce of troll... rather than respond from the hip, I've been mulling over the most constructive way to reply... but hey, if everything I write is just a springboard for shots, there's maybe no point.

Not mad L-E, just a bit frightened of people who, with little or no independent scientific expertise or learning, are so unquestionably eager to toe the party line and demonize those who differ. I am much more comfortable debating those with whom I may disagree, even vehemently so, but who are capable of independent thinking. Sorry, but trying to pigeonhole people into distinct boxes is counterproductive to your professed desire to galvanize those same people to act. Just thought this was worth pointing out.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If only the media would let up a bit on climate change and air some of these other problems with as much vigour, perhaps people would start thinking twice about drinking and eating from single use containers, consuming products containing palm oil and so on and so forth.

That sounds more productive, no? Specific & maybe positive things people can actually do, and are probably healthier and more cost-efficient as well. Instead, we all too often hear it coupled with negative preaching about the evils of fossil fuels, capitalism, 1st world selfishness, Repubs, conservatives, yada, yada, yada. There's way more potential consensus on this and many other environmental issues, imho, but it requires some thinking independent of what we're constantly being told.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's way more potential consensus on this and many other environmental issues, imho, but it requires some thinking independent of what we're constantly being told by the mainstream media.

A slight edit.

There is a consensus about the science within the scientific community. The lack of consensus exists with the solutions proposed. And the MSM plays up on that.

The MSM is there is to sell newspapers or click-throughs. "If it bleeds, it leads."