Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I didn't realize that life including humans has only existed on earth for 800,000 years?

Or... Have you been off picking cherries again?

800,000 years is the data available from the Vostok ice cores.

During that 800,000 humans and their food sources evolved.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Crikey. Imagine if the industrial revolution had never happened. We'd all be sitting around shivering in our bloomers writing letters to each other bemoaning the destruction of the environment caused by horse farts and poo.

Most of us would never have been conceived, because our ancestors would have perished in childbirth or as infants or as young children. Take a look around graveyards with graves more than a hundred years old and check the distribution of dates on the tombstones.

Almost all those who would be alive would be sore-infected, malnourished, small, weak, and subservient to the master classes, and be slave laborers on the remaining farms and in the remaining industries.

Look around the world at the countries that don't have access to abundant energy and power, and compare their lives to those of the countries that do have abundant energy. The effects of abundant energy on a society are obvious, but the chattering classes would deny that to currently underserved countries...and would move those that have those benefits to a Hunger Games age.

Absent the enormous power and energy supplies that have fostered our current prosperity, the science that is used to argue about the effects of CO2 concentrations on the margins of climate would be unknown.

break/break...

If the near term prospect is for an ice-free Arctic, why do the budgets for regional countries not have budget lines that are zeroed out? Must not have much confidence in the "consensus."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

the chattering classes would deny that to currently underserved countries...and would move those that have those benefits to a Hunger Games age.

That's simply ********. The challenge is to meet everyone's energy requirements in a fashion that makes less of a mess, including CO2, and that can be sustained indefinitely.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

If the near term prospect is for an ice-free Arctic, why do the budgets for regional countries not have budget lines that are zeroed out? Must not have much confidence in the "consensus."

Strawman. What near term?

When will the Arctic lose its sea ice? | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

If anything Canada is looking at increasing its budget for the Arctic in order to maintain our sovereignty and to protect a very sensitive environment.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lo.../prb0561-e.htm

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's simply ********. The challenge is to meet everyone's energy requirements in a fashion that makes less of a mess, including CO2, and that can be sustained indefinitely.

It would be helpful if all the MMGW worriers shared that sensible view. Unfortunately the availability of the science has attracted a significant number of political change advocates that are opportunistically using the GW doomsday card to promote their long held desire to "level the playing field". They perceive some countries have more which means others must necessarily have less. That's a well proven fallacy yet it is still taught at many (most?) universities.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

...Canada is looking at increasing its budget for the Arctic in order to maintain our sovereignty...

Sovereignty. What a quaint, old fashioned notion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's simply ********. The challenge is to meet everyone's energy requirements in a fashion that makes less of a mess, including CO2, and that can be sustained indefinitely.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It would be helpful if all the MMGW worriers shared that sensible view. Unfortunately the availability of the science has attracted a significant number of political change advocates that are opportunistically using the GW doomsday card to promote their long held desire to "level the playing field". They perceive some countries have more which means others must necessarily have less. That's a well proven fallacy yet it is still taught at many (most?) universities.

L-E's view is most sensible and probably represents a significant majority regardless of politics. Unfortunately the more extreme views are also all too often the loudest, and their proponents are really pursuing another agenda as you point out. Fortunately they're easy to spot, since their views surrounding an extremely complex scientific area are generally black & white, they're too busy with their personal agendas to honestly converse, and they will simply ignore, distract or ridicule dissenters. All you hear is a constant regurgitation of the party line with no discourse when their views are challenged. And then there's the holier-than-thou condescension you can always count on to make themselves feel superior & smart, all under the guise of "critical thinking." Gimme a break.

Unfortunately for those who would prefer to learn more about the actual science, this only serves to undermine their own credibility, and more importantly the credibility of the science they are purporting to advance.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sovereignty. What a quaint, old fashioned notion.

The MMGWC masterminds will take care of us...heck they might even tell us to smoke tabaco for our heath, because after all, there once was a consensus that tabaco was good for you health. Opps...so much for the science of consensus.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The MMGWC masterminds will take care of us...heck they might even tell us to smoke tabaco for our heath, because after all, there once was a consensus that tabaco was good for you health. Opps...so much for the science of consensus.

And that tobacco lobby was led by the Heartland Institute, the same one the leads the charge against climate science.

Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine

[Celestialsailor]

Boy...That's a stretch Rich.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And that tobacco lobby was led by the Heartland Institute, the same one the leads the charge against climate science.

Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine

You took the bait....but the Hilarious thing is that you don't even realize it yet. But like someone who gets a joke hours later...you will...

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Boy...That's a stretch Rich.

That was the point...oh well...it's a slow night I guess....

Oh well, back to something fun like watching the Trumpsters

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And that tobacco lobby was led by the Heartland Institute, the same one the leads the charge against climate science.

Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine

The "distract" approach.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The "distract" approach.

For Heartland, climate science is as settled as tobacco science.

Methinks that you are distracted one.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For Heartland, climate science is as settled as tobacco science.

Methinks that you are distracted one.

One has nothing to do with the other. You're attacking the messenger not the message. Stick with the science. Or continue to distract, distort, confuse, obfuscate. How is Heartland any different from the many politically motivated & funded mouthpieces on the other side?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

How is Heartland any different from the many politically motivated & funded mouthpieces on the other side?

Because they're on the other side?