California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

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.

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?

[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.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Again, you can't start with a conclusion and work your way backwards to what we should be doing.

What conclusion do you think I've made? And yes, you can "Start with a conclusion" and change behavior in attempt to not reach that conclusion. It's what most living things do every day- it's the survival instinct.

There's no existential threat in evidence.

What is that supposed to mean? There are many existential threats to Earth and its inhabitants. What evidence?

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You can get counterpoints to any position you hold in there.

You can also fish for brown trout at sewage plants. No limits!

[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.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I say again: The story changes every day.

And?

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

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.

What makes you think I want to "ban fossil fuels"?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Where have you got the idea that I want to "ban fossil fuels"?

So there is no plan and there never was.
I would walk back that kind of rhetoric too after embarrassing my self like that.