Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Delfin;2127692]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mr. PH, the question I have for you is what basis would you have for thinking that if Hamas and Hezbollah decided to lay their arms that Israel would not live in peace with them? I'm open to an argument, but generally when leftists say things like that, it is because like many other leftists, the State of Israel gives them hives.

So go for it, buddy, give me an explanation for such a view other than a dislike of Israel, a Jewish State, which is by definition an anti-semitic position to take? Over to you...

Sorry buddy - you made your bed, sleep in it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Here I disagree. I think I made it clear that I'm not a fan of political solutions but Kyoto or Paris showed clearly that there is a shift in political will to tackle the problem. I might not agree with the solution but I see it as a starting point.

Btw. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you say you want to support scientific research and development, on the other hand you are against research and development you see as not worthy. The green jobs in Spain or Germany you mentioned, the solar power plants in the US, electric cars or even the wendelstein 7-x stellator are not a waste of money. It helps to develop and improve technologies, which are by far not perfect yet but will improve our future.



If one follows your train of thought we all would drive in Ford Types A in black on dirt roads demanding improvement but sticking to the good old blacky.

No, but before a particular technology be mandated by government, we should verify that the technology actually worked. You can research green technology without forcing it down everyone's throats at preposterous public expense only to find out it was a waste of money. Solyndra is a perfect example. You could have determined that their technology wasn't commercially feasible through research without spending $500 million pretending it wasn't.

[Delfin]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2127696]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Sorry buddy - you made your bed, sleep in it.

In other words, you have no explanation. Thank you for verifying my point.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Mr. PH, the question I have for you is what basis would you have for thinking that if Hamas and Hezbollah decided to lay their arms that Israel would not live in peace with them? I'm open to an argument, but generally when leftists say things like that, it is because like many other leftists, the State of Israel gives them hives.

So go for it, buddy, give me an explanation for such a view other than a dislike of Israel, a Jewish State, which is by definition an anti-semitic position to take? Over to you...

If you want a Middle-East thread, start a Middle-East thread. Preferably on breitbart.

Your sad lurches into this here, and clutching the poor to your bosum as you make a lame case for inaction... kind of tell a story about you, and it's not flattering.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I couldn't begin to imagine how race would ever be wedged into this, but someone's managed it.

Here's one SOLID reason for funding AGW mitigation: it would make funding another "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that much harder.

Race has nothing to do with it. Arguing that Israel wouldn't celebrate the disarmament of the lunatics that are trying to kill them by living in peace with their neighbors is an inherently anti-semitic position, because it is the kind of irrational nonsense that only an anti-semite would put forth. The fact that the same leftist loons that are AGW scam supporters also tend towards this other leftist article of faith hardly comes as a surprise.

Apparently you and Mr. PH are simply deniers of this basic reality.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Delfin;2127698]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In other words, you have no explanation. Thank you for verifying my point.

In the immortal words of Socrates, "Know thyself."

When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor

You chose to appeal to racism. Live with it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Solyndra is a perfect example. You could have determined that their technology wasn't commercially feasible through research without spending $500 million pretending it wasn't.

Solyndra was straight-up FRAUD.

Your continued raising of Solyndra shows just how much your position is a fraud.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

By "proponents for Global warming" do you mean people who are in favour of it?

I am all for Global warming especially if it accompanied by increased atmospheric CO2 - more plant food

Stu

Here is what your "plant food" could bring:

The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon

Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Nathan P. Gillett, Andrew J. Weaver, Vivek K. Arora & Michael Eby

AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author

Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3036

Received 29 July 2015 Accepted 21 April 2016 Published online 23 May 2016


Concrete actions to curtail greenhouse gas emissions have so far been limited on a global scale1, and therefore the ultimate magnitude of climate change in the absence of further mitigation is an important consideration for climate policy2. Estimates of fossil fuel reserves and resources are highly uncertain, and the amount used under a business-as-usual scenario would depend on prevailing economic and technological conditions. In the absence of global mitigation actions, five trillion tonnes of carbon (5 EgC), corresponding to the lower end of the range of estimates of the total fossil fuel resource3, is often cited as an estimate of total cumulative emissions4, 5, 6. An approximately linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions is known to hold up to 2 EgC emissions on decadal to centennial timescales7, 8, 9, 10, 11; however, in some simple climate models the predicted warming at higher cumulative emissions is less than that predicted by such a linear relationship8. Here, using simulations12 from four comprehensive Earth system models13, we demonstrate that CO2-attributable warming continues to increase approximately linearly up to 5 EgC emissions. These models simulate, in response to 5 EgC of CO2 emissions, global mean warming of 6.4–9.5 °C, mean Arctic warming of 14.7–19.5 °C, and mean regional precipitation increases by more than a factor of four. These results indicate that the unregulated exploitation of the fossil fuel resource could ultimately result in considerably more profound climate changes than previously suggested.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No, but before a particular technology be mandated by government, we should verify that the technology actually worked. You can research green technology without forcing it down everyone's throats at preposterous public expense only to find out it was a waste of money. Solyndra is a perfect example. You could have determined that their technology wasn't commercially feasible through research without spending $500 million pretending it wasn't.

You want a list of similar failures? How much was spent so far on the F-35? Or what about the $1.3 million grant from the National Science Foundation to two students investigating how a foam koozie keeps a can of cold beer cool on a hot day.

On the first view the Beer cooling research may appear completely ridiculous but the results are extremely useful and will improve the fridge on your boat as well as insulation technologies on spacestations or spaceships.

Delfin, you know you are lucky that government agencies were funding Einstein's, Schödinger's or Heisenberg's research and were not looking at commercial feasibility.

Their research was considered useless at the time, but in fact you would not have a computer, TV, or any other electronic device without understanding quantum mechanics and we would not have this nice discussion on CF without their useless research.

PS: You see I have been arguing many times for funding of research without immediate commercial value, and my colleagues call me when they need to argue for their needed funding

[avb3]

Closed pending moderator discussion.