Global warming strikes again...

[Synobun]

This might be a worthwhile read. While it doesn't say that reducing carbon emissions is an economically wise choice (that would be a weird argument to make anyways), it does show that the reduction of emissions is not an economy killer.

Most countries generate the majority of their emissions due to energy production and consumption. Something like replacing coal with an equal or superior resource in terms of efficiency can have a significant impact on emissions across the globe. And at the same time, we don't need to eliminate coal entirely right this second. Technology exists that reduces the environmental impact of coal and we can use that in the interim while we develop a sustainable framework for an alternative.

 

[onejayhawk]

You would do much better if you argued against soot and harmful gas emissions. CO2 is neither.

Power generation is one question. Consumption is another. In the US, power generation is largely locked in outdated methodology due to the extreme hostility to new construction. That is a good argument against you. That said, it's the easier to address since engineering exists to at least moderate all the issues.

Consumption is primarily transportation. Here the engineering does not exist. Yet, transport demands are growing faster than population.

J

 

[Angst]

These are centrist positions but are usually treated as heresy. I use the term advisedly since there is a fully fleshed out, state-sanctioned religion of climate change. So, if you want to get into a religious discussion with a non-believer, be advised that is what you will be doing.

J

You almost seem reasonable but then you frame scientific consensus like this.

And even if I buy into your ignoring of presented facts, clinging tightly to your 3%, how is this making any sense?

How are you seeing the green position as government-mandated? Obama was centrist according to your "reasonable" flavor, Trump is going in the other direction. Denmark, even with all its windmills, is currently seeing retraction into blackindustry.

You're all smugly making fun of us, but you frame your positions of "reason" and "centrism" without actually adressing the facts as presented to you. You ignore the vast majority of material in this thread.

No, humans aren't the sole factor, but they're definitely the primary reason to; if anything, humans are the reasons the current climate change is dangerous.

It's baffling that you think the current governmental direction is to "sanction my religion". There is very little done by the vast majority of governments, even Western ones. It's honestly quite obvious you're fed propaganda by certain politicians - not facts by the majority of scientists.

 

[CavLancer]

So, not one of us agree that the left has hung itself. Figured that was the case. To those who got in a twist about my asking a simple question requiring a simple answer, get a life.

It has been my policy here to ask questions, such as the left hanging itself, and the one about what Clint Eastwood said, which I did not say, that would get people freakin out at me so that I may prove one point.

You folks and your politics and negativity is sapping your humor, decaying your charm, and you are losing your sparkle. Even a safe thread is a place to become offended. Why not just address the question? Raise your concerns to each other rather than get angry all the time?

Of course when I made a thread about too much negativity it got ...well its not so easy to post there now. That was where I had planned to make this post.

You may continue to freak out at me and get offended over my global warming thread if you must...

 

[onejayhawk]

You almost seem reasonable but then you frame scientific consensus like this.

I am reasonable if something of a free thinker. What is unreasonable is your understanding of the word consensus.

J

 

[Synobun]

Definition of consensus...
1a : general agreement
1b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

97% seems like a fair understanding of consensus.

 

[onejayhawk]

97% seems like a fair understanding of consensus.

When it applies, sure. What is lacking is understanding of when it does not apply.

J

 

[Synobun]

When it applies, sure. What is lacking is understanding of when it does not apply.

J

Evidently it doesn't apply when you don't want it to.

 

[onejayhawk]

Evidently it doesn't apply when you don't want it to.

It applies where it applies and not where it does not apply.

If that is too platitudinous for you (it ought to be), try this. It does not apply to the topic of climate change generally, only to small portions of it. It is important to know when it does or does not apply. Assuming it always applies--which you have done--gets you in trouble.

J

 

[Synobun]

It applies where it applies and not where it does not apply.

If that is too platitudinous for you (it ought to be), try this. It does not apply to the topic of climate change generally, only to small portions of it. It is important to know when it does or does not apply. Assuming it always applies--which you have done--gets you in trouble.

J

I've yet to be provided any statistics whatsoever that aren't cherry-picked that would go against the 97% consensus. I have no reason to think differently than the way I do unless I wanted to do so simply to spite everyone else.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, zooming in on a climate graph and circling one small measurement as the basis of a "this is all a sham!" argument does not work well especially when it's the only thing being offered.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My fridge is very cold. This means something.

My fridge may still be cold next spring. If it does, it proves global cooling.

We will see, I will let my fridge do the talking.

 

[CavLancer]

You guys all buy the toothpaste preferred by 9 out of 10 dentists, yes?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Crap, I just turned on the oven to bake bread.

I guess global warming is a thing after all.

 

[Angst]

So, not one of us agree that the left has hung itself. Figured that was the case. To those who got in a twist about my asking a simple question requiring a simple answer, get a life.

It has been my policy here to ask questions, such as the left hanging itself, and the one about what Clint Eastwood said, which I did not say, that would get people freakin out at me so that I may prove one point.

You folks and your politics and negativity is sapping your humor, decaying your charm, and you are losing your sparkle. Even a safe thread is a place to become offended. Why not just address the question? Raise your concerns to each other rather than get angry all the time?

Of course when I made a thread about too much negativity it got ...well its not so easy to post there now. That was where I had planned to make this post.

You may continue to freak out at me and get offended over my global warming thread if you must...

Offended? Clint Eastwood? Safe space? I'm sorry but... Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Why the hell are you mixing identity politics into this?

How can you not understand why I'm angry about denier attitude against climate change? There are actual reasonable prognoses of devastation made by scientists right now. I joke about climate change all the time. But this is no place for it, seeing that we're in a situation where you aren't listening to reality.

It applies where it applies and not where it does not apply.

If that is too platitudinous for you (it ought to be), try this. It does not apply to the topic of climate change generally, only to small portions of it. It is important to know when it does or does not apply. Assuming it always applies--which you have done--gets you in trouble.

J

No. You're just wrong. The consensus is ther. I presented you the source. What the hell am I otherwise to do? You're being willfully ignorant. Your claim is just a reiteration of unenlightened crap argument that circulates in denier circles. You haven't demonstrated anything. You just say no. It never holds up to scrutiny when faced with the material. Which I've already presented to you. Should I present it to you again? How many times do I have to hit you over the head with the data in order for you to cancel your intellectual pollution? Are you just a lost cause?

 

[Synobun]

You guys all buy the toothpaste preferred by 9 out of 10 dentists, yes?

Poor example. Toothpaste is a product and wouldn't be sold if it didn't complete its task. The "9 out of 10 ___" marketing term is as valuable as putting "cage-free" on your package of potato chips, and ultimately has no bearing since it's not a claim meant for statistics and long-term poicy and is instead a claim meant for making a sale. Since most deniers like to claim that switching to the policies and technologies of green activists would cripple our economy and leave us back in the 3rd world (for some reason?), are you ready to claim that all of our evidence and all of our recommendations are secretly ploys to make a buck? Who's making the money if our economy dies as a direct result of said policy and switch-over?

Either way, if you go to an actual dentist they'll tell you any toothpaste works, to use the one that works best for you, and here's a sample of their preferred toothpaste. Because toothpaste isn't climate change and shouldn't be treated as such.

Are you going to make a serious response again in this thread soon or is this all we should be expecting? I know you're capable of crafting an intelligent post. You're acting like you've phoned it in, and that's fine, whatever, but why keep participating if that's the case?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Offended? Clint Eastwood? Safe space? I'm sorry but... Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Why the hell are you mixing identity politics into this?

He posted the same strange post in at least three different threads. As far as I can tell it doesn't seem to really make much sense in any of them. Still, it's a bit of Yuletide entertainment.

 

[Berzerker]

We have had this discussion before.

I'm surprised you want to rehash it... You're welcome to convince people it'd be easier building a damn several hundred miles long around Kansas and deliver the water than a damn several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water. I'd be happy to move from Kansas if it meant we could slow or stop the flooding of the world's coastal populations. Then you can convince people why its smarter to flood prime farmland than what are mostly lava fields destined to be seafloor anyway.

 

[Angst]

He posted the same strange post in at least three different threads. As far as I can tell it doesn't seem to really make much sense in any of them. Still, it's a bit of Yuletide entertainment.

Well... I understand there is an overlap between some of those that think climate change is real and ... uh... feminists, I guess? It's a little unclear the particular group he's targeting, it seems incredibly diverse. But yea, might be some overlap. Point is, still, it has nothing to do with this thread, which is why I'm a big questionmark right now.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're welcome to convince people it'd be easier building a damn several hundred miles long around Kansas and deliver the water than a damn several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water.

Those are impressively-sized damns. To think that the biggest damn we can muster here on the forum is this size:

DAMN!

Nope, they don't compare at all. Not even two inches on my computer screen.

I wonder how big a Darnitall! I could type...

 

[Silurian]

I'm surprised you want to rehash it... You're welcome to convince people it'd be easier building a damn several hundred miles long around Kansas and deliver the water than a damn several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water. I'd be happy to move from Kansas if it meant we could slow or stop the flooding of the world's coastal populations. Then you can convince people why its smarter to flood prime farmland than what are mostly lava fields destined to be seafloor anyway.

Im not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am just demonstrating that you have not done any back of an envelope calculations to show that your water storage solution is cost effective.

You have not shown any place that could hold the water produced by the USA. You have suggested that the USA invade Isreal and flood the dead sea valley up to Lebanon, but this is required to hold the extra sea water produced by Israel, Jordan and Syria. You suggested the Afar depression but that would only hold 1/60th of the water produced by the USA and where are the Africans going to put their water.

So where is this place where the USA can build a dam " several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water".

Remember you have to find a place with the area of the USA that you can flood to a depth of 6m or a smaller area deeper like Kansas.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/posts/11194165/

""
"Berzerker said: ↑
It wont happen, we're adding to the atmosphere and a bunch of ice is gonna melt. Might as well take advantage of it and start creating inland reservoirs.
The trouble is you are going to need a large area."

The USA produces about 18% of the CO2.

If the oceans of the world were to rise by 1m and 18% of that were stored in the USA the whole country would have to be covered to an average depth of 6m. Alternatively Kansas could be surrounded in one massive dam and flooded to an average depth of 285m.

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.""