Jump to content


The Global Warming Pause


Recommended Posts

The only debate of the Consensus allowed is between those who wish to advance it.

 

Challenge the Consensus, and find yourself marginalized with attacks on your motives and person.

 

The Consensus will establish and promote a bureaucracy.

 

The bureaucracy will protect and advance the Consensus through committee and coin.

 

The bureaucracy will propose political reforms, citing the Consensus as justification for both the means and the ends.

 

Protect and support the political reforms proposed by the bureaucracy in service of Consensus.

 

Those who argue against proposed political reforms, argue against the Consensus and should be marginalized with attacks on motive and person.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

But you guys, there was a poorly-supported hypothesis of global cooling in the 70s that a few publications ran with. So, that means . . . something, right?

Remember when the big scare tactic was the alleged hole in the ozone layer?! Now they're trying to scare us with this, huh?!

 

 

You mean the hole that's big enough to start touching the southern tip of South America now and covers approx. 90% of Antarctica?

 

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffttt...that weaksauce s**t is so 1990s, man.

Link to comment

The only debate of the Consensus allowed is between those who wish to advance it.

 

Challenge the Consensus, and find yourself marginalized with attacks on your motives and person.

 

The Consensus will establish and promote a bureaucracy.

 

The bureaucracy will protect and advance the Consensus through committee and coin.

 

The bureaucracy will propose political reforms, citing the Consensus as justification for both the means and the ends.

 

Protect and support the political reforms proposed by the bureaucracy in service of Consensus.

 

Those who argue against proposed political reforms, argue against the Consensus and should be marginalized with attacks on motive and person.

 

jennifer-lawrence-10.gif

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

What's going to be cheaper in the long term. Overhauling the energy grid and replacing old cars with hybrids and electrics, or an increasing number of disaster clean ups? Even many big businesses are coming around that climate change is going to dramatically impact their bottom line, and are becoming more supportive of 'green' initiatives. Try to educate yourself on what is really going on before going hook-line--sinker into what some old money operations want you to think so they can protect their short term bottom lines.

 

 

The scary thing is going to be the sea level rise. Basically every coastal American city will need extensive levee systems to avoid being flooded. Huge swaths of Florida will be underwater. Same goes with Louisiana. The natural disaster increase kind of takes second place to the sea level problem

Link to comment
Sure! Do you think that there are more of those people than the 77% of Republicans who don't believe that human activity is causing global warming? Or more of them than GOP leaders and elected officials who play to the rubes with "I'm not a scientist" and/or "the science isn't settled"?

 

Which do you think is more concerning?

 

 

Conservative politicians that promote ignorance should be ashamed of themselves. Please don't confuse my criticism of one side with excusing the other. If I felt James Inhofe was being insufficiently condemned, I would say something, but the reality is that people like him get tons of flak for their idiocy, while Al Gore and co. are given a pass when the polar ice caps that they claimed would be gone by now aren't gone.

 

 

 

The scary thing is going to be the sea level rise. Basically every coastal American city will need extensive levee systems to avoid being flooded. Huge swaths of Florida will be underwater. Same goes with Louisiana. The natural disaster increase kind of takes second place to the sea level problem

 

 

The IPCC thinks that the sea level will rise 1-3 feet in the next 100 or so years, and that's really the crux of my position: consequences of climate change are so slow, I think it's nuts that we can't easily cope with any changes. It's a given that in a matter of decades, fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past in the West as renewable technology becomes viable, so we're really talking about energy policy for the next probably 50 or so years. So really the argument is: will we do catastrophic damage by not completely reorganizing our coal/oil-based economies asap, that is, before the open market provides solutions on its own? I think, with good reason, the answer is "of course not." The earth has survived advanced human civilization for a few hundred years now and it can (and will have to) make it another 50 or so before our economies transition to different energy sources.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I don't think you understand that based on what we know now, we won't be able to stop the warming and sea level rise unless we act soon. It becomes a runaway effect that will last centuries, causing all sorts of problems that we could prevent, but choose not to.

Link to comment

I don't think you understand that based on what we know now, we won't be able to stop the warming and sea level rise unless we act soon. It becomes a runaway effect that will last centuries, causing all sorts of problems that we could prevent, but choose not to.

 

And this is what I mean by people claiming outrageous and incorrect things in science's name. The IPCC's most recent climate assessment report:

 

Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus -- appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.

 

If you want to have a debate over whether it's worth saving this or that sub-species of fish, that's fine, but the problem with this debate is that both sides operate well outside of scientific consensus on the issue (which is actually quite narrow). The world will not end if people keep driving Hummers. That's my point.

Link to comment

That report also states:

 

"Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to

achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts."

"Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on

opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels."

"There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be

achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or

expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective

incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and

addressing related barriers.”

And from the exact same paragraph you quoted:

 

For example, stability of thermohaline circulation or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) or the Greenland ice sheet, the

mobilization of biospheric CO2 stocks, changes in the Asian summer monsoons, loss of mountain glaciers, coral reefs

and ENSO all appear to be of global or regional significance, respectively, and thus these are some of the natural

bounds, which if exceeded, would lead to major potentially irreversible impacts. It is very likely that the irreversibility

and scale of such changes would be considered “unacceptable” by virtually all policy-makers and would thus qualify

as “dangerous” change.

All of this seems more consistent with what tschu was talking about, not the line about Earth becoming Venus that you picked out because (I assume) it also includes the word "runaway."

 

The Cliffs Notes appears to be they're advocating policy change in order to avoid unacceptable changes, noting it will come at the cost of slowed growth but is still currently feasible.

  • Fire 4
Link to comment

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Link to comment

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

Link to comment

...which seems more consistent with what tschu was talking about, not the line about Earth becoming Venus that you picked out because (I assume) it also included the word "runaway."

 

'Runaway' has a very specific definition. It means it can't be stopped. To use 'runaway' is to state that global warming could have apocalyptic consequences, which it won't. It's used for a very specific purpose: to scare people. Scared people do things that rational people do not, which is what the shysters in the green industry want. Like I said, if you want to talk about consequences, talk about plausible consequences, don't insist the world will end if you don't get your way.

 

Ice levels in both arctic regions are increasing, not decreasing. An ongoing problem in the environmental movement: there's the science, which is generally pretty good, and there's their predictions, which haven't been. Models are only as good as their inputs, and those are very tricky to predict so far out.

Link to comment

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

Link to comment

 

...which seems more consistent with what tschu was talking about, not the line about Earth becoming Venus that you picked out because (I assume) it also included the word "runaway."

 

'Runaway' has a very specific definition. It means it can't be stopped. To use 'runaway' is to state that global warming could have apocalyptic consequences, which it won't. It's used for a very specific purpose: to scare people. Scared people do things that rational people do not, which is what the shysters in the green industry want. Like I said, if you want to talk about consequences, talk about plausible consequences, don't insist the world will end if you don't get your way.

 

Ice levels in both arctic regions are increasing, not decreasing. An ongoing problem in the environmental movement: there's the science, which is generally pretty good, and there's their predictions, which haven't been. Models are only as good as their inputs, and those are very tricky to predict so far out.

 

 

Could you provide sources for these two claims, please?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...