California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[freebeard]

One against one. We need a tie-breaking vote. The part you elided: 'Fueling the risk is not a unitary choice.' There is no single path forward. There likely isn't a single best path forward. Each choice must be weighed against every other choice.

What do you intend with 'continue taking that risk'? What is your alternative?

Burning fossil fuel has prevented an Ice Age so far.

[freebeard]

Here's a further rebuttal to your point C:

Connecting the Dots: The Great Reset & The Fourth Industrial Revolution

If you free the screen at 25:03 you can read

There is no technological solution to a societal problem", said Agora Verkehrswende director Christian Hochfeld.

This is antithetical to Buckminster Fuller's Design Science Revolution. Just a horrible-horrible statement.

In a statement Hochfeld added, "Only business models that comply with the Paris goals are future proof."

This is what we must guard against; rigid solutions to a fluid problem.

I'm interested in what you think. They talk a lot of platitudes about making things all better, but would they really?

It's easy for me to propose an alternative to the Green New Deal — Fuller's Design Science Revolution, World Game and Synergetics*. There's no way to easily summarize that man's life's work but it is an inspiration for all. They will be studying Synergetics for as long as we've studied Leonardo da Vinci and Tesla. Plus he has an elemental form of carbon, C-60, named after him.

*Read Spaceship Earth or Utopia or Oblivion, or just meditate on their titles.

[oil pan 4]

Without fossil fuels or suitable replacement large swaths of far northern latitudes become uninhabitable for larger populations.
Without fossil fuels farming, mainly the fertilizer the world would have to depopulate down to under 2 billion.
Something like 95% of the world population gets at least some food grown using synthetic fertilizer.
Around 95% also use fossil fuel powered farm equipment and/or FF powered irritation.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

A. Cars and cheap (to the consumers) energy have been great for humanity in ways, and horrible in ways.
B. Human well-being and ultimately the habitability of the planet are at risk, and much of this risk is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (fueling) that risk.

Therefore, from C alone:

D. We need a major shift away from burning fossil fuels.

We should have taken this seriously when Carter was president. If we would've started then, then we wouldn't have to make changes so quickly, now.

A. Cell phones are cheap (to the consumers) and have been great for humanity in ways, and horrible in ways.
B. Human well-being and ultimately their health are at risk, and much of this risk is due to radiation emissions near their heads, which for some individuals is their most valuable possession.
C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (irradiating) that risk.

Therefore, from C alone:

D. We need a major shift away from cell phone use.

[freebeard]

I think we may have (or end up having) similar visions, or at least ones that are more compatible than opposing.

"The validity of item C of my case is not up for vote."

I don't really have the spare time for replies that involve watching videos.

So books are right out then?

I am not familiar with Buckminster Fuller's ideas.

Much of my ideas and vision come from biomomicry.

There is a vast corpus of material on Fuller. Then there is Viktor Schauberger. Are you familiar?

Viktor Schauberger - Cosmic Polymath
Search domain http://www.cosmicpolymath.com/viktor...hauberger.html
The innovative science of Viktor Schauberger is clouded in controversy and even mystery. From Viktor we learn that all we have to do is to watch and learn from nature itself. Viktor's perspective and outlook on science was greatly influenced by Goethe, whose brand of science encompassed the wholeness of nature.

Viktor Schauberger - Comprehend and Copy Nature (Documentary of 2008)
The first film about Viktor Schauberger’s life’s work. A comprehensive survey of historical facts, current research and various practical applications into both technology and the natural world.

We're stuck with books and films until Neuralink is rolled out.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Suitable alternatives are one of the main things in my approach.

It's kind of funny that the last word was irritation instead of irrigation because the things mentioned (burning fossil fuels; boatloads of synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides) are actually irritants.

K, so how do you plan to replace 175 million tons of of global ammonia production with renewables?
At least 70% of that is used for fertilizer.
I don't think you comprehend the scale of the problem.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

All the way to a complete collapse of the ecosystem. This planet could end up like the other planets: uninhabitable, lifeless, etc.

Alright, I'm going to 2nd the recommendation for you to visit the climate change thread that has already thrashed through this dozens of times over. You can get counterpoints to any position you hold in there.

Again, you can't start with a conclusion and work your way backwards to what we should be doing. There's no existential threat in evidence.

Here's the geologic timeline of CO2 concentration and temperature. Most of earth's history has been spent with CO2 concentration above 1000 ppm and temperatures at least 5 degrees warmer. Life flourished.

Below 180 ppm CO2, photosynthesis struggles. Plant life thrives somewhere around 1000 ppm. We're at 400. We're about as cold as earth has experienced and about as low of CO2 concentration.

Through all these enormous swings, the most devastating event was an asteroid.

[freebeard]

And, what are the underlying principles of your position?

redpoint5 listens to Scott Adams. Scott Adams' position is that one's underlying principles are received. Science says you decisions are made before your mind rationalizes them.

Explaining a position is hard enough.

Do you comprehend the potential consequences of climate disruption? Food shortages, mass migration, more pandemics, etc? All the way to a complete collapse of the ecosystem. This planet could end up like the other planets: uninhabitable, lifeless, etc.

Those are what K. (The Hammer) McEnany calls hypotheticals and brushes them aside.

[freebeard]

I say again: The story changes every day.

Cosmic Ray Health Alert, Climate Bombshells Continue | S0 News Oct.15.2020

Kp=0 index day. Don't make any dangerous decisions for the next 24 hrs.

Today's Featured Links:
Greenland: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4804
Quasars: https://chandra.cfa.harvard.edu/photo...
Dust and the CMB: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.06589.pdf
Sept Global Climate: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-pr...
Thawing Releases Organic Compounds: https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/scien...
CO2 Drop Drops CO2-Dropping Hopes: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/la...

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What makes you think I don't comprehend the scale of the "That's how we currently do things" problem?

Do you comprehend the potential consequences of climate disruption? Food shortages, mass migration, more pandemics, etc? All the way to a complete collapse of the ecosystem. This planet could end up like the other planets: uninhabitable, lifeless, etc.

And, what are the underlying principles of your position?

Because you clearly dont.
Banning fossil fuels guarantees everything you just mentioned as a possible side effect of climate change.
There are ecosystems that depend complete on people pumping water.

There's no scientific basis for any kind of "silent running" scenario. The closest we could get is fire every nuclear weapon at each other and met down every nuclear power plant and it still wouldn't cause a "the beach" scenario.

So what's your plan to replace million of tones of petrochemicals with renewables?
NH4 is pretty simple, it's 5 atoms, been produced by man from fossil fuels since the Victorian age, it's the most widely produced chemical by man.
If ammonia could be produced renewably all fossil fuels could be rendered obsolete.