Question for JPP Climate Enthusiasts

dukkha said:
indeed. "This will not be a command top down solution" they claim.
and then they scream EXISTENTIAL THREAT and want to impose top down solutions
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

So we have these socialists and they’re not having a lot of success in getting their socialism passed into law. But lo and behold, the earth will end in 12 years if we don’t ‘do something’ about climate change.

And wouldn’t you know it? Everything that must be done to avert the climate disaster involves a massive expansion of government, draconian increases in the cost of energy and government intrusion into the lives of Americans—many of whom, happen to vote.

That climate solutions lead to socialism seems a little too convenient to a lot of people.

Hence, the OP question.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Too bad that what might have been an interesting and intelligent discussion has turned into a shit soup of "yeah but liberals are idiots" and "So-and-so is an asshole" as per usual around here.

My two cents:

Climate change is occurring. Whether at this point it's too late to do anything is not within my scientific ken. What's certain though is that doing nothing will lead to eventual disaster. How best to "do something"?

1. Our govt. (the current one) needs to stop pretending nothing is happening.
2. Our govt., along with industry and commerce, need to formulate some ideas on how best to deal with it, with oversight by non-govt. scientists.
3. Carrots always work better than sticks. No one wants sticks -- but the idiotic hyperbole of "Ermagawd government gonna destroy capitalism and freedom because climate change!" is more like a log than a stick.
4. Carrots -- tax incentives for companies and individuals to green up. We have had this in the past; I'm unsure whether Trump managed to dispense with all of the various rebates and tax breaks yet, or not.
5. In five years if carrots aren't doing what #2 has come up with for a plan, then it's stick time.
6. Small stick: If you haven't managed to reduce your net energy usage in those five years, your rates will go up. If you haven't managed to curb your carbon emissions (amt to be determined by #2, above) in five years, your taxes will go up.
7. Big stick: If raising your tax rate doesn't get you (businesses) to curb your carbon emissions, then we'll be adding fines to your bill.
Click to expand...

If you really wanted to do something you'd stop farting around with renewables and go hell for leather with 4th generation nuclear. That's the answer, simple enough even for Septics to understand.
 
Into the Night said:
Define 'global warming'. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or slow heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

You just continue to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just continue to deny science.
Click to expand...

All life on Earth would cease to exist if there was no greenhouse effect, stop spouting bollox!!
 
Last edited:
Jack said:
Less People.
Click to expand...

An idea as old as humanity.

We've been killing each other over resources ever since that chimp in 2001 Space Odyssey touched the monolith, and then killed the foreign chimp leader so his tribe could have the watering hole.
 
Last edited:
There would be no need for climate alarmism if there was no bleeding of western civilization and overt socialism.

Since there is no scientific evidence (as demonstrated in Michael Mann's refusal to release his data in a BC slander li awsuit) we can do nothing at all and the effect will be the same.
 
Havana Moon said:
All life on Earth would cease to exist if there was no greenhouse effect, stop spouting bollox!!
Click to expand...

No. Sun heats the earth quite nicely all by itself and due to our proximity we are neither too hot nor too cold. The somewhat variable amount of solar output produces "ice ages".
If you want geeenhouse effect you better get busy constructing a greenhouse around the planet.
 
Cypress said:
There is nobody on this board with the expertise, training, and knowledge to answer that.

Playing armchair expert on an obscure message board is an exercise in both futility and self-conceit.

Anyone on an obscure message board who claims they have the solution to global warming needs to check their ego.

On the other hand, anyone who claims addressing global warming will result in a Soviet-style command and control "massive intrusion" into people lives is parroting what they heard on Fox Noise, and that type of sloganeering telegraphs their abject ignorance on the subject matter.

The experts are going to have to come up with solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and identify and implement adaptation strategies for our infrastructure, public works, and remaining healthy ecosystems.

It is going to cost money.

But the economics also have to factor in the cost of doing nothing. What is the cost to society, to our pocketbooks, and to the environment if we do nothing and continue to relentlessly spew billions of tons of heat-trapping GHGs into the atmosphere,year after year, decade after decade, with no thought of trying to limit it?

My judgment is that a "do nothing" strategy will cost your pocketbook and your quality of life far more in the long run, than spending money on mitigation and adaptation in the short run.
Click to expand...

Remember this?
Screenshot_20190906-091457_Gallery.jpg

I live in an area predicted to BENEFIT from global warming. :awesome:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Fukushima.
Click to expand...
We do not want and Fukushimas or Chernobyls around here.
We are approaching half a century after the Chernobyl disaster, and there are still large areas of southern Belarus where the soils are contaminated with radioactive isotopes, and one eats food grown in those soils at their own peril. The human cost is almost incalcuable. The authoritarian government of Belarus tries to sweep it under the rug, but to this day millions of Belarusians have been directly or indirectly impacted by cancer, radioactivity, and adverse impacts to the environment from that nuclear disaster.
In secretive Belarus, Chernobyl's impact is breathtakingly grim
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...der-town-chernobyl-30th-anniversary/82888796/
Click to expand...
Sg00KPu.jpg
 
Into the Night said:
Define 'global warming'. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or slow heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

You just continue to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just continue to deny science.
Click to expand...

You need to convince me that you are not going to be a waste of time, and that you have legitimate training and expertise to even pontificate on this topic.

I do not have the time or inclination to waste on armchair expert poseurs.
Doing a ten minute google search and parroting, or even misrepresenting, a few things you read on a blog does not make you an expert.

Do you have a PhD in atmospheric science? what university is it from? And point me to your original research published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
 
Cypress said:
We do not want and Fukushimas or Chernobyls around here.
We are approaching half a century after the Chernobyl disaster, and there are still large areas of southern Belarus where the soils are contaminated with radioactive isotopes, and one eats food grown in those soils at their own peril. The human cost is almost incalcuable. The authoritarian government of Belarus tries to sweep it under the rug, but to this day millions of Belarusians have been directly or indirectly impacted by cancer, radioactivity, and adverse impacts to the environment from that nuclear disaster.

Sg00KPu.jpg
Click to expand...

I doubt if Crypiss has read the UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl. It doesn't really matter anyway as other more enlightened countries are pressing ahead with 4th generation nuclear.

https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top