Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Marco Rubio on climate change

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:15:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
He had a point during the second debate in which he stated that it is not in the U.S interest to cut down on energy consumption and spending on green energy because our efforts would be offset by China's unwillingness to do the same. I'm personally for greener energy and reducing consumption of high-polluting non-renewables like coal and oil, but how do we reconcile the sad fact that our energy cuts no longer pose a notable effect on global climate change? Even if we turn 100% renewable, what will we have done for the cause when China continues to produce smog cities? In addition, Indian prime minster Modi has made it clear that it does not plan to cut down on its extraction and consumption of its coal as a central motor for its economic growth.

The link below talks about the recent G7 commitment of eliminating global carbon emissions by 2100, capping the temperature increase to 2 C* over pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com...

To me it sounds like we're effed. :/
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Marco Rubio accepted CNNs false premise but he was right when he said taxes and cutting carbon emissions won't stop global warming and rising sea levels. The measures and government solutions to global warming are simply for show to appease the religious cult of global warming who actually believe in phantoms not supported by evidence.

Let's be clear, CO2 does not correlate with nor cause global warming. CO2 causes desert greening and boosts foliage in both arid and lush environments.

http://m.phys.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:15:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
He had a point during the second debate in which he stated that it is not in the U.S interest to cut down on energy consumption and spending on green energy because our efforts would be offset by China's unwillingness to do the same. I'm personally for greener energy and reducing consumption of high-polluting non-renewables like coal and oil, but how do we reconcile the sad fact that our energy cuts no longer pose a notable effect on global climate change? Even if we turn 100% renewable, what will we have done for the cause when China continues to produce smog cities? In addition, Indian prime minster Modi has made it clear that it does not plan to cut down on its extraction and consumption of its coal as a central motor for its economic growth.

The link below talks about the recent G7 commitment of eliminating global carbon emissions by 2100, capping the temperature increase to 2 C* over pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com...



To me it sounds like we're effed. :/

Now now... no reason to toss in the towel yet.

The US is still the leader, and if we came to be the leader into the future, we need to show that, even when it causes some pain. We could be on the other side of implementing greener tech while the other countries are struggling to get started, if we only start!

The issues along the way, the tech we build now, and as we move through the process could make us the global powerhouse in green tech. That is an investment.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:28:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Marco Rubio accepted CNNs false premise but he was right when he said taxes and cutting carbon emissions won't stop global warming and rising sea levels. The measures and government solutions to global warming are simply for show to appease the religious cult of global warming who actually believe in phantoms not supported by evidence.

Let's be clear, CO2 does not correlate with nor cause global warming. CO2 causes desert greening and boosts foliage in both arid and lush environments.

http://m.phys.org...

First of all, the "religious cult of global warming" is not a cult. It is a worry held by politicians from dozens of countries and supported by - probably - billions of people, not to mention the scientific community around the world. If any group of people should be labeled a cult, it is reserved for those who still believe that humans haven't had an impact on global climate patterns. That's you, I suppose. Second, you provide one link showing CO2s effect on foliage. What's your point? Foliage has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, rather it has only to do with CO2s effects on plants' ability to photosynthesize. this is a completely different cause-effect study. It doesn't address the question of melting icecaps, forest fires, and extreme weather variability. Thirdly, you are going to cite one piece of data to override decades of data and research on global warming? The deniers are definitely the "religious cult" here.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all, the "religious cult of global warming" is not a cult. It is a worry held by politicians from dozens of countries and supported by - probably - billions of people, not to mention the scientific community around the world. If any group of people should be labeled a cult, it is reserved for those who still believe that humans haven't had an impact on global climate patterns. That's you, I suppose. Second, you provide one link showing CO2s effect on foliage. What's your point? Foliage has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, rather it has only to do with CO2s effects on plants' ability to photosynthesize. this is a completely different cause-effect study. It doesn't address the question of melting icecaps, forest fires, and extreme weather variability. Thirdly, you are going to cite one piece of data to override decades of data and research on global warming? The deniers are definitely the "religious cult" here.

Well said. I have never been keen on derogatory labeling, but that the denyers still are trying to apply words like 'cult' to the vast majority of scientists earns them all the scorn I can muster.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:26:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:18:34 PM, TBR wrote:
First of all, the "religious cult of global warming" is not a cult. It is a worry held by politicians from dozens of countries and supported by - probably - billions of people, not to mention the scientific community around the world. If any group of people should be labeled a cult, it is reserved for those who still believe that humans haven't had an impact on global climate patterns. That's you, I suppose. Second, you provide one link showing CO2s effect on foliage. What's your point? Foliage has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, rather it has only to do with CO2s effects on plants' ability to photosynthesize. this is a completely different cause-effect study. It doesn't address the question of melting icecaps, forest fires, and extreme weather variability. Thirdly, you are going to cite one piece of data to override decades of data and research on global warming? The deniers are definitely the "religious cult" here.

Well said. I have never been keen on derogatory labeling, but that the denyers still are trying to apply words like 'cult' to the vast majority of scientists earns them all the scorn I can muster.

Indeed sir
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:42:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:32:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
He had a point during the second debate in which he stated that it is not in the U.S interest to cut down on energy consumption and spending on green energy because our efforts would be offset by China's unwillingness to do the same. I'm personally for greener energy and reducing consumption of high-polluting non-renewables like coal and oil, but how do we reconcile the sad fact that our energy cuts no longer pose a notable effect on global climate change? Even if we turn 100% renewable, what will we have done for the cause when China continues to produce smog cities? In addition, Indian prime minster Modi has made it clear that it does not plan to cut down on its extraction and consumption of its coal as a central motor for its economic growth.

The link below talks about the recent G7 commitment of eliminating global carbon emissions by 2100, capping the temperature increase to 2 C* over pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com...



To me it sounds like we're effed. :/

Now now... no reason to toss in the towel yet.

The US is still the leader, and if we came to be the leader into the future, we need to show that, even when it causes some pain. We could be on the other side of implementing greener tech while the other countries are struggling to get started, if we only start!

The issues along the way, the tech we build now, and as we move through the process could make us the global powerhouse in green tech. That is an investment.

I hate how the linguists have manipulated the language to inaccurately claim that advocating for a colder planet means a greener planet.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:06:42 PM, ben2974 wrote:
First of all, the "religious cult of global warming" is not a cult. It is a worry held by politicians from dozens of countries and supported by - probably - billions of people, not to mention the scientific community around the world.

The primary promoter of the global warming hoax are U.N. funded scientists in the IPCC. They are scientists paid to do the work of people who admittedly have a political agenda to implement a global carbon tax to consolidate power into global government.

"We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this [global carbon tax]."
-- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

http://www.latimes.com...

"Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."

-- Harold Lewis; Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

"I am a skeptic"Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly".As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn"t listen to others. It doesn"t have open minds" I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

http://epw.senate.gov...

Global warming data is manipulated, top scientists now investigating
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Second, you provide one link showing CO2s effect on foliage. What's your point? Foliage has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, rather it has only to do with CO2s effects on plants' ability to photosynthesize. this is a completely different cause-effect study. It doesn't address the question of melting icecaps, forest fires, and extreme weather variability. Thirdly, you are going to cite one piece of data to override decades of data and research on global warming? The deniers are definitely the "religious cult" here.

You are an idiot. You think that's the only citation I have for my case? I never said that the link demonstrated no link between CO2 and rising temperatures. I cited the link to show CO2 causes desert greening, something that actually has evidence for the affect of CO2 on climate.

"The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March, 2013 that began with this lede:

'OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth"s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.'"

http://www.forbes.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:57:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I hate how the linguists have manipulated the language to inaccurately claim that advocating for a colder planet means a greener planet.

I can agree that "green" has become a buzzword, but it is way accurate than "cult" in this context.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:02:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The primary promoter of the global warming hoax are U.N. funded scientists in the IPCC. They are scientists paid to do the work of people who admittedly have a political agenda to implement a global carbon tax to consolidate power into global government.

Can you show these U.N. funded scientists?
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:27:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:53:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:06:42 PM, ben2974 wrote:
First of all, the "religious cult of global warming" is not a cult. It is a worry held by politicians from dozens of countries and supported by - probably - billions of people, not to mention the scientific community around the world.

The primary promoter of the global warming hoax are U.N. funded scientists in the IPCC. They are scientists paid to do the work of people who admittedly have a political agenda to implement a global carbon tax to consolidate power into global government.

"We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this [global carbon tax]."
-- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

http://www.latimes.com...

"Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."

-- Harold Lewis; Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

"I am a skeptic"Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly".As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Here is Dr. Simpsons full statement. Skeptical does not= denier. Secondly that was 7 and 1/2 years ago. Do you think her view point is the same now that models are beginning to become more robust?

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn"t listen to others. It doesn"t have open minds" I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

http://epw.senate.gov...

Global warming data is manipulated, top scientists now investigating
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


Second, you provide one link showing CO2s effect on foliage. What's your point? Foliage has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, rather it has only to do with CO2s effects on plants' ability to photosynthesize. this is a completely different cause-effect study. It doesn't address the question of melting icecaps, forest fires, and extreme weather variability. Thirdly, you are going to cite one piece of data to override decades of data and research on global warming? The deniers are definitely the "religious cult" here.

You are an idiot. You think that's the only citation I have for my case? I never said that the link demonstrated no link between CO2 and rising temperatures. I cited the link to show CO2 causes desert greening, something that actually has evidence for the affect of CO2 on climate.

"The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March, 2013 that began with this lede:

'OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth"s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.'"

http://www.forbes.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:02:09 PM, TBR wrote:
The primary promoter of the global warming hoax are U.N. funded scientists in the IPCC. They are scientists paid to do the work of people who admittedly have a political agenda to implement a global carbon tax to consolidate power into global government.

Can you show these U.N. funded scientists?

Yes.
http://www.ipcc.ch...

Irrelevant though. Fact is, those pushing global warming are funded by the U.N., a global political organization.

Fact 2. We have seen a rapid output of record highs of CO2 during periods of both flat and declining temperatures.

Fact 3. The Medieval period saw even higher temps than present yet they had no industrial CO2 output. Any increases in temperature are due to natural causes.

"Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.

The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California."

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
http://m.pnas.org...
http://www.latimes.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:38:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Irrelevant though. Fact is, those pushing global warming are funded by the U.N., a global political organization.
With all due respect, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:41:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is Dr. Simpsons full statement. Skeptical does not= denier. Secondly that was 7 and 1/2 years ago. Do you think her view point is the same now that models are beginning to become more robust?

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...

People should read the entire thing. Good link
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:42:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes.
http://www.ipcc.ch...


Your link shows nothing. Like, a blank author page. Please provide some of the U.N. funded scientists.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:15:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
He had a point during the second debate in which he stated that it is not in the U.S interest to cut down on energy consumption and spending on green energy because our efforts would be offset by China's unwillingness to do the same. I'm personally for greener energy and reducing consumption of high-polluting non-renewables like coal and oil, but how do we reconcile the sad fact that our energy cuts no longer pose a notable effect on global climate change? Even if we turn 100% renewable, what will we have done for the cause when China continues to produce smog cities? In addition, Indian prime minster Modi has made it clear that it does not plan to cut down on its extraction and consumption of its coal as a central motor for its economic growth.

The link below talks about the recent G7 commitment of eliminating global carbon emissions by 2100, capping the temperature increase to 2 C* over pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com...



To me it sounds like we're effed. :/

He may have a point as long as the things he would focus on would enable us to better handle catastrophic events such as eliminating Federal Flood insurance for those on the coast to start influencing a migration inland.

If the argument is that I'm going to crap in the bathwater because that other guy is crapping in the bath water we are both sitting in then it is not as sound logic.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:42:16 PM, TBR wrote:
Yes.
http://www.ipcc.ch...


Your link shows nothing. Like, a blank author page. Please provide some of the U.N. funded scientists.

Wrong. The link shows every single contributer to U.N. climate reports if you click the link on the top left and select the working group and report name.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:51:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wrong. The link shows every single contributer to U.N. climate reports if you click the link on the top left and select the working group and report name.

No, it really doesn't. This is not an irrelevant point. You made the statement, lest start with some simple facts. Show me the UN funded scientists please.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:55:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me help you out a little

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch...

So. Keep looking. Find me the scientist paid by the U.N. please.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Want to know why people are dismissive of your "facts"? Because they are not facts.

Bring some.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:45:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:42:16 PM, TBR wrote:
Yes.
http://www.ipcc.ch...


Your link shows nothing. Like, a blank author page. Please provide some of the U.N. funded scientists.

Wrong. The link shows every single contributer to U.N. climate reports if you click the link on the top left and select the working group and report name.

In my last year of college (fall 2014) I took an intro energy and environment course (cuz colleges be like: rounded educationn hueueheue) and my professor would often talk about his research. Some of the research he did was on analyzing CO2 deposits in ice layers, examining the trend of the compound up-to-date. It was supporting evidence for man-made global warming. My point is that scientists from all places are running experiments and tests to help conclude our hypothesis on global warming - not just the U.N. And just because some physicists or other scientists disagree with the community's findings doesn't make the findings any less pertinent.

As one of your sources pointed out in the same letter: "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

Even if we're wrong about global warming, we will have done ourselves and the world a great service by moving on to cleaner energy. The oil and coal industries stifle green technological development, create geopolitical stress, resource dependency, and more. We also simply have a moral obligation to prevent potential catastrophes like this. At least we will know that we took preventative measures to protect our environment, help vulnerable countries, and improve the world economy.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just want him to produce the U.N. funded scientists. He is willing to further the conspiracy theory, it should be easy to prove.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's easy to prove global warming is bad, and alot harder to prove that a warmer planet is bad. All you need to show that global warming is bad is to point out the non-human species that can't adapt fast enough, and bingo. Global warming is bad. The end.

Green life needs water, and does alot better on thawed ground than frozen ground. We already know the earth has had periods of abundant floral life in periods like the Cambrian period, where the temperature was 7 degrees higher (not just a mere 2 degrees higher).

We also know cloud cover increases with temperature, and that translates to more water access for green life. Even if it were true that a colder planet provides more water to green life, the thawing of the earth alone provides opportunities to expand arable land easily irrigated with modern human technology.

There has been almost zero research to decipher what the optimal temperature the earth should be for the most abundant amount of green life. Until then, there is no way I can hop on the cold planet train, even if it costs the economy nothing (or even grew the economy!) to cool the planet.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How about if it just got us away from dependence of non-renewable resources, and out of the M.E. hell?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:12:27 PM, TBR wrote:
How about if it just got us away from dependence of non-renewable resources, and out of the M.E. hell?

Getting out of the ME hell is a good thing. Dependence on non-nonrenewables will solve itself when scarcity prices it out of reach.

There are some pretty disturbing articles out there about how scientists already have the technology to cheaply inject sun blocking particulate into the air with geo-engineering. Absolutely nobody is willing to just stop and ask for even a moment whether or not his is a good idea. Runaway global cooling should scare the bejeebus out of anyone who has studied floral fossils from a hotter past, and also of a colder past. Nobody will stop and ask the really important question, what temperature supports the most green life?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:20:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:12:27 PM, TBR wrote:
How about if it just got us away from dependence of non-renewable resources, and out of the M.E. hell?

Getting out of the ME hell is a good thing. Dependence on non-nonrenewables will solve itself when scarcity prices it out of reach.

I agree.

There are some pretty disturbing articles out there about how scientists already have the technology to cheaply inject sun blocking particulate into the air with geo-engineering. Absolutely nobody is willing to just stop and ask for even a moment whether or not his is a good idea. Runaway global cooling should scare the bejeebus out of anyone who has studied floral fossils from a hotter past, and also of a colder past. Nobody will stop and ask the really important question, what temperature supports the most green life?
This is a better argument then "global warming is a hoax".
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:22:43 PM, TBR wrote:

This is a better argument then "global warming is a hoax".

Well, people are fricken slow and stupid then.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:28:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:20:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:12:27 PM, TBR wrote:
How about if it just got us away from dependence of non-renewable resources, and out of the M.E. hell?

Getting out of the ME hell is a good thing. Dependence on non-nonrenewables will solve itself when scarcity prices it out of reach.

That isn't going to happen for decades. There's enough non-renewable - especially coal - to last for a long, long time.

There are some pretty disturbing articles out there about how scientists already have the technology to cheaply inject sun blocking particulate into the air with geo-engineering. Absolutely nobody is willing to just stop and ask for even a moment whether or not his is a good idea. Runaway global cooling should scare the bejeebus out of anyone who has studied floral fossils from a hotter past, and also of a colder past. Nobody will stop and ask the really important question, what temperature supports the most green life?

That sounds like a bad idea to me - it reminds me of what unhampered industrialization does to cities and water systems - like in China today and in England and the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is a seemingly irresponsible and lazy maneuver - kind of like drinking your problems away...

We already estimate that if we continue our dependency on non-renewables there would be crop shortages, coastal flooding (thus mass migration from poor island/coastal countries, as well as economic shocks to coastal/other industries), reef damage/water acidification, etc), migration of parasitic diseases, etc.

Honestly, to me, it just makes sense to avoid risk and play it safe. As our scientific base grows with time perhaps we can take a corrective stance . . . whenever that may be. The longer term benefits to investing in green technology significantly outweigh the short term burdens. I'd love to provide a source for that claim, but pulling articles I read in 2014 would be a pain in the @ss.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:03:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.theatlantic.com...

2% world GDP decrease! I didnt read the whole thing. I am posting this as I leave the office. I'll read it all for myself later.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:28:29 PM, ben2974 wrote:

We already estimate that if we continue our dependency on non-renewables there would be crop shortages, coastal flooding (thus mass migration from poor island/coastal countries, as well as economic shocks to coastal/other industries), reef damage/water acidification, etc), migration of parasitic diseases, etc.


First, even the EPA debunks acidification as anything to worry about.
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com...

An ignorant layman can see that the volume of the ocean to particulate CO2 is on orders of magnitude beyond serious discussion. But whatever, and on to the claims of global warming damage.

That's nice and all, and it is real easy to say global warming is a bad thing in the short term because it destroys the balance of things that cannot change quickly, like a house on the beach, poor people, and evolutionarily challenged animal species.. But in no way does that address what the ideal temperature should be, or whether a warmer planet will eventually, over a many generations, be able to sustain far more green life than a cold one, or whether it's a good idea to artificially cool the planet at all by blocking the sun's energy. Or whether such an action could cause a significant reduction of green life due to a mad, unexamined desire to eliminate more life-giving sun as well as life sustaining temperature. This should not a subject for the pollings of idiots or junk scientists.