Question for JPP Climate Enthusiasts

D

Darth Omar

Russian asset
Seen several clips from CNN’s seven hour Climate marathon that hardly anyone watched.

Yang wants to ban commercial air travel; Harris wants to control how much red meat you eat; Biden, playing the ‘moderate’ said “we’ve got to shut down all coal burning plants”; Mayor Pete says if you eat hamburgers you’re part of the problem.

You get the idea.

But here is my question for the Climate Enthusiasts: is there any solution to global warming that *doesn’t* involve top-down command and control socialism and/or a massive intrusion of government into people’s lives and pocket books?
 
Darth Omar said:
Seen several clips from CNN’s seven hour Climate marathon that hardly anyone watched.
Click to expand...
I heard they were trying to out - $trillion spend each other progressively. Kinda like an auction bidding war on who can create the biggest increase in the deficit to keep the weather from changing all over the world.
 
anonymoose said:
I heard they were trying to out - $trillion spend each other progressively. Kinda like an auction bidding war on who can create the biggest increase in the deficit to keep the weather from changing all over the world.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the gist of it.

But we already produce less carbon than any other industrial nation; yet, that isn’t enough to save the planet.

Maybe one of the Climate Enthusiasts can explain things.
 
Darth Omar said:
Seen several clips from CNN’s seven hour Climate marathon that hardly anyone watched.

Yang wants to ban commercial air travel; Harris wants to control how much red meat you eat; Biden, playing the ‘moderate’ said “we’ve got to shut down all coal burning plants”; Mayor Pete says if you eat hamburgers you’re part of the problem.

You get the idea.

But here is my question for the Climate Enthusiasts: is there any solution to global warming that *doesn’t* involve top-down command and control socialism and/or a massive intrusion of government into people’s lives and pocket books?
Click to expand...

Less People.
 
Jack said:
Less People.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We could solve two problems with genocide, especially genocide of those in shit hole countries that try to immigrate here illegally.
1. It would save the money spent on a wall.
2. It would solve the problem of global warming
 
Darth Omar said:
Seen several clips from CNN’s seven hour Climate marathon that hardly anyone watched.

Yang wants to ban commercial air travel; Harris wants to control how much red meat you eat; Biden, playing the ‘moderate’ said “we’ve got to shut down all coal burning plants”; Mayor Pete says if you eat hamburgers you’re part of the problem.

You get the idea.

But here is my question for the Climate Enthusiasts: is there any solution to global warming that *doesn’t* involve top-down command and control socialism and/or a massive intrusion of government into people’s lives and pocket books?
Click to expand...

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.
 
anonymoose said:
I heard they were trying to out - $trillion spend each other progressively. Kinda like an auction bidding war on who can create the biggest increase in the deficit to keep the weather from changing all over the world.
Click to expand...

Got to question a Trumpkin even mentioning deficits and debt, almost as lame as them labeling another politician a liar
 
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...

One of several problems that plague climate change policy is nearly all the ‘do somethings’ entail massive government control of people’s lives and/or economy wrecking measures—that may or may not, payoff.

And for this, we are told to trust the ‘experts’. That doesn’t pass the sniff test.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
Darth Omar said:
One of several problems that plague climate change policy is nearly all the ‘do somethings’ entail massive government control of people’s lives and/or economy wrecking measures—that may or may not, payoff.

And for this, we are told to trust the ‘experts’. That doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top