FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

[SailRedemption]

The only answer, in my opinion, is better public education. Not on climate change but on recycling, conservation of resources, and upcycling. EV isn't the answer just like natural gas vehicles aren't the answer (in my opinion, I think these are a better solution than EV). Green thinkers push EV for the cars low/no emissions, but they rarely think about that massive strip mine in the middle of some destroyed forest or jungle to get it. What about the used lithium batteries that don't have a strong recycling system?

Someone mentioned forest fires, that's not a climate problem. That's a man made problem of not doing selective cutting and controlled burning. Droughts aren't climate change, they are a result of thousands of square miles of pavent covering the earth to prevent it from absorbing to the water table. Giant drainage canals that route rainwater from inland to the sea.

I don't deny climate change, what I do disagree with is being forced to believe that our actions and only our actions are the result of it. Sure, I believe we need to change our lives so as not to consume so much but that's a human nature thing. Most will want more and more.

My wife and I work in the oil industry on an OSV as a engineer and a captain because someone has to do it. We do our best to do our part in reducing and prevention. Isn't that what we all should be doing in whatever we do? Our sailboat is our only home and has used EV lithium car batteries because they are perfect for our loads in a boat. We have a f150 truck, but only a truck, between the two of us and we use it like a truck. That said, if someone made a Prius type vehicle that didn't look as hideous(in my opinion) as it does and looked like a normal sedan I'd be all about it. Likewise, if there was a hybrid truck I'd consider that too.

Climate change proponents shouldn't tell people how to change and to live, they should be the leading people SHOWING how it can be done.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Droughts aren't climate change, they are a result of thousands of square miles of pavent covering the earth to prevent it from absorbing to the water table. Giant drainage canals that route rainwater from inland to the sea.

Although most of your post seems logical and well stated, I have to ask about the droughts that plagued the Native Americans or any other pre industrial society hundreds or thousands of years ago. Wasn't really a lot of pavement back then.

[SailRedemption]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Although most of your post seems logical and well stated, I have to ask about the droughts that plagued the Native Americans or any other pre industrial society hundreds or thousands of years ago. Wasn't really a lot of pavement back then.

I should have put that in context to the more recent years of the western US, mainly California, droughts, my apologies. [emoji847]

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Someone mentioned forest fires, that's not a climate problem. That's a man made problem of not doing selective cutting and controlled burning. Droughts aren't climate change, they are a result of thousands of square miles of pavent covering the earth to prevent it from absorbing to the water table. Giant drainage canals that route rainwater from inland to the sea.

Certainly you are correct about the more localized man-made problems like water-proofing the landscape. But we just went through a horrific few weeks of fire and there was no forest to be managed where I am. What we had was powerful wind, with humidity as low as 2%, and dry scrubland with homes built close to the dry scrub. A single spark, in that scenario, can set off a fire storm that is, and was, completely unstoppable. The drought and Santa Ana winds can be traced to changes in our weather locally over the last 20 or 30 years. Sure we have had Santa Ana winds like this, and droughts, but the severity and longevity are noticeably increasing. I live in an area that received, and typically receives, the focused blast when Santa Ana winds start up. I was lucky this time. The Santa Anas are the result of the high pressure dome that builds up over the west and southwest. The causes of that dome are apparently more energized, and at this point every firefighter will tell you fire season is now pretty much the whole year. The idea that these fires could have been ameliorated with a little more tree and brush clearing was met with very little enthusiasm to say the least.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

smart people always use opportunities to rip off loonies and make profit on trends

Pardon - some smart people like to create- art, music, buildings, systems. Some smart people like to study things that interest them - history, languages, medicine, science, engineering, etc. Sime smart people like to explore. Some like to teach. And yes many smart people like to create profitable enterprises.

The problem with many deniers of climate change is that they think that everyone is as amoral, greedy and self-centered as they are.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

I should have put that in context to the more recent years of the western US, mainly California, droughts, my apologies. [emoji847]

I appreciate your comment and get what you are saying but it still leads to my point that "facts" can be made to fit anyone's agenda.

My question to all still stands as to what caused the last ice age to end and how would Al Goreians would have reacted to it today?

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The problem with many deniers of climate change is that they think that everyone is as amoral, greedy and self-centered as they are.

Again name calling and pigeon holing does not mean you "win" the argument. Calling people that disagree with you greedy and self-centered is a good sound byte but does nothing to prove your point. Please try again.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

So far all I have seen is no plan at all, however I have seen several get rich off of it. My buddy Al is just too easy a target is all, the ultimate hypocrite in my opinion

Can't get to planning if we're mired in debating the very existence of a problem. That's been the point of a very well-executed campaign.

Here's my argument for why I think AlGoraphobia is misplaced.

• He got rich doing other stuff, not from evangelizing or capitalizing on global warming.
• Just about all former presidents and vice-presidents get major coin for speaking engagements. He speaks on something that is of consequence, instead of 40 min of homilies or platitudes
• It's my understanding that his speaking fees on climate change go to his non-profit foundation.
• Yes he lives like the rich guy that he is - big house, jets around, etc etc. I would like to make the case that he be judged for the net effect he has on the environment: if he can inspire individuals to make small changes and advocate for greener policies, or convince businesses to adopt greener practices... then that should be part of the accounting... and from that, it's not hard to see that his footprint is actually a net positive?

Sure, the optics of a rich guy telling others to curb their consumption might be problematic... but you can't be very effective if you have no public stature, or have to ride a bicycle to all your appearances. Ghandhi is not accepting any new engagements.

Anyways. if we have to be led by plutocrats, I think I prefer one who seems to actually be concerned about things that affect us all.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Climate change proponents shouldn't tell people how to change and to live, they should be the leading people SHOWING how it can be done.

But that's what it's all about.
The progressives are simply using MMGW as an ends to a means of control.
What good would it be if 99% of the population bought into MMGW but in doing so didn't give the progressives any power over their lives? Nada.

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste.

And if there isn't a real crisis, make one up. One that you are evil and don't care about the Children or the Planet if you oppose.

They tried this with the Population Bomb and...well bombed out.

They tried it with the Eugenics Movement and well....we know where that led us.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Again name calling and pigeon holing does not mean you "win" the argument. Calling people that disagree with you greedy and self-centered is a good sound byte but does nothing to prove your point. Please try again.

I didn't say "all". Besides, what else are we to think about people who insist that climate change is a scam perpetrated for personal gain by, like, just about all climate scientists?


(and I know better than most that there's no "winning" on CF. The AGW debates here are nearly devoid of meaningful information, and minds open enough to receive it)

[CatNewBee]

I would prefer one that values freedom over a nanny state and brain washing. Let the people decide, make a referendum.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SailRedemption

Climate change proponents shouldn't tell people how to change and to live, they should be the leading people SHOWING how it can be done.

Personal examples can be inspiring. Unfortunately, individual action will be no more effective at mitigating global warming than charity will be at ending poverty.


They are both problems of policy.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Besides, What else are we to think about people who insist that climate change is a scam perpetrated for personal gain by, like, just about all climate scientists?

What if we asked you the same position..."What else are we to think about people who believe the MMGW SCAM"?

See the very premise of you Question and Attitude is Flawed and is a tell for your false "consensus". Meaning, why would I take anyone like you....the uneducated rabble seriously. Why...well amigo because you HAVE TO. You are the one proposing that Americans and the World change their way of life, so since we don't live in a dictatorship you have to Convince ME....you have to Convince the Voters. You can't bully us. You can't roll over us. You can't ignore us and call us deniers and names. Because unless you want to overthrow our current form of Government NOTHING you want can happen until WE the Majority of the Voters vote for Politicians that believe in your MMGW Scam.

Good luck to you...you are going to need it.

[SailRedemption]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Certainly you are correct about the more localized man-made problems like water-proofing the landscape. But we just went through a horrific few weeks of fire and there was no forest to be managed where I am. What we had was powerful wind, with humidity as low as 2%, and dry scrubland with homes built close to the dry scrub. A single spark, in that scenario, can set off a fire storm that is, and was, completely unstoppable. The drought and Santa Ana winds can be traced to changes in our weather locally over the last 20 or 30 years. Sure we have had Santa Ana winds like this, and droughts, but the severity and longevity are noticeably increasing. I live in an area that received, and typically receives, the focused blast when Santa Ana winds start up. I was lucky this time. The Santa Anas are the result of the high pressure dome that builds up over the west and southwest. The causes of that dome are apparently more energized, and at this point every firefighter will tell you fire season is now pretty much the whole year. The idea that these fires could have been ameliorated with a little more tree and brush clearing was met with very little enthusiasm to say the least.

I understand that the areas west of those mountains are very arid. And I feel for your experiences during this past fire. I still believe selective tree cutting and better forest management. You may not live near the overgrown forest but when that forest goes a flame it has a lot of kinetic energy, especially with those winds. It started in a national forest if I remember correctly, Plumas? There's a good TEDtalk about what I'm saying.

Paul Hessburg: Why wildfires have gotten worse -- and what we can do about it
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_hessbu...es_have_gotten

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Glenn C

ok I haven't read all the posts, and generally do not respond to such threads , as I am rather tired of arguments around its all a hoax to fund scientist research grants.

I have just retired as a senior executive of Rio Tinto, 2nd largest mining company. Rio Tinto has had a position and a policy on climate change for several years.

Essentially they accept the science and see an effective response as crucial to sustainability of the business, and our way of life.

you can easily read a 2 page document on their policy, or indeed the full 62 page approach from their web site. this is not 'greenwash' as Rio Tinto has sold all its coal assets and is focussing on minerals required for renewables and electric vehicles, such as copper and lithium.

Resource companies by their nature are in it for the long term, as the time frames and costs to develop a 50 - 100 year resource are quite substantial.

Rio Tinto are not the only ones, BHP, Woodside etc also have similar approaches and policies. These companies are not run by 'left wing, green loonies', they are run by smart business people with a view to the long term and risk mitigation.

I have yet to see any responses from those claiming its a hoax to the position of these major global companies.

they are just doing what will make the most money.