The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What else have you got?

The Oceans are already fished out.
.
These are all terrible things. And will hurt THEM bad and sad in 100 years.
.
Worldwide runaway inflation will break down the fabric of society when the current debt bubble bursts. and it won't be a couple decades down the road. Maybe only a couple years. See Venezuela, ect.
.
Then the reality of diminishing access to liquid fuel and phosphorous will make world scale infrastructure maintenance impossible and world food production insufficient.
.
Then climate change, extreme weather, droughts, will really start killing people and ecosystems.
.
Three major problems to tackle. Each with their own timeline.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Very poetical. And all too true.

Debt and entitlements could be disrupted by the technology to grow houses from high-tech 'seeds'.

Can't happen.

Originally Posted by freebeard

High-rise hydroponics: 1/10th the water, no soil erosion, nitrogen runoff, etc.

That might work nice for a couple hundred million people in the world.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Ship that glacial meltwater to LA?

We might be able to eventually drag an iceberg and beach it at Qatar. But who would pay?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The debt is from unfunded tax cuts, and unfunded wars.

Unfunded tax cuts doesn't make sense. It doesn't cost to have someone not pay a tax. The more accurate description would be insufficient tax revenue for given government expenditures.

The truth is that entitlements (government dependency / loss of liberty) far exceed any other spending category. That isn't to say money isn't wasted in other categories, only that it's less significant.



Collectively we have developed a narcissistic entitlement culture where we eat tomorrow's lunch and let our grandchildren pay for it. We have that attitude with resource consumption, pollution emissions, and economics.

Climate change is the single biggest challenge that humans have ever faced - and it is caused by us.

Tell that to WWII survivors. Ask any old person what their top 10 most significant challenges were, and I doubt GW appears on their list. Ask an 80 year old how they coped with a sea level that rose 8" in their lifetime, and they will give you a blank stare. This is the same predicted rise for the next 80 years.

We are causing climate change, and so we can stop doing the things that are causing it.

Facts affect you, no matter what your opinion is. Laws of Nature don't bend.

We are a significant contributing factor, but it's far from clear if the net negative impacts of GW outweigh the net benefits.

Its nice that we live in such a comfortable world in which the outdoor thermostat is something we can concern ourselves with. Much better problem to contend with than say, how not to starve to death, or how to keep invading hordes from killing us.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Can't happen.

Prior art:

https://bugguide.net/node/view/284763/bgpage

A wasp flies up to an Oak tree, injects it with a hormone, and the tree creates a living pod and starts delivering groceries. Would that we were as intelligent as the wasp.

We might be able to eventually drag an iceberg and beach it at Qatar. But who would pay?

That was the proposal in the 1950s. High drag and shrinkage. I'd favor huge tubes inflated with freshwater, with the fineness ratio of an oar fish.

[Xist]

Montgomery Burns--Brewster!

[freebeard]

Too much cultural reference for me. Is that one? Or three?

Anywys, not if you don't want it to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete

[Xist]

Brewster's Millions? The 1985 hit where a minor league backup baseball player inherits $30 Million from an uncle that he never knew, under the condition that he needs to spend absolutely all of it in thirty days?

I do not know how much mylar you would need to cover a glacier, but I am sure it would help.

The water, though.

[aerostealth]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9TR9G...ature=youtu.be

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We could have started in the 1970s, but nooo...

Oh, we did. We allowed the FIRE sector to gain control of the economy and had an explosion of urban sprawl circa 1970 still underway. Wrecking any idea of efficiency. Only the stupid believe that it was due to “attractiveness” to abandon the cities

To whose profit? Cui bono. Should be the question.

Once it’s understood that the purpose of this country is to squeeze every dollar out before collapse does the rest make sense. Domestic policy or foreign.

More than a century of the greatest wealth production ever seen, and all that Americans own today is debt.

Can’t even afford to start a family on one income. (“Family business? What’s that?”). There was quite a debate circa the Civil War era about whether it was right — whether it was American — for any of us to work for another. Funny how those shackles became unavoidable, huh?

“Climate change consensus” is just more crowd control. Your options menu. Red, or Green? Another new wrist shackle decoration. To go with your (all important) credit rating.

In debt you are born, and in debt you will die.

.
.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The numbers are absolutely impossible. The sooner we realize that it is not possible to have a 1:1 replacement of primary energy with rebuildables, the sooner we can begin to implement rational decisions on developing a new social system that can survive on much less.
.
We are being led down a Green Brick Road to meet with the wizard of renewability, only to find that he is actually just an impotent old man running a scam.

*Lomberg anticipated solar to be competitive by 2051.Page 136 (it's competitive today).
*Lomberg said '...there is a good reason to believe that our energy consumption will change towards renewable energy sources way before (2100).' page 329.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something also to consider:
*Lomberg reports that 43% of American energy use is wasted.page 125.
(with energy efficiency measures,the US could reduce it's overall load by 43%,reducing the amount of renewable infrastructure by the same amount without any loss of service)
*Lomberg goes on to say that 'A further 41% is wasted in transforming fossil fuels to electricity,and this waste is not (easily) avoidable) page 379.
By transitioning away from fossil-fuels we reduce America's total load below the 43% reduction we can gain through energy efficiency.A significant reduction in necessary manufacturing and installations.
*Since fossil fuel is currently providing the lion's share of power,the very act of getting off of it cut's our overall needs by more than half! Which reduces 'range anxiety' over renewables by at least half.
That's a pretty good hat-trick!