The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Xist]

Can who? Venom? Basically, he is a psychotic version of Spiderman, except his costume can look like anything. Can it look like a hundred square miles of shade? I really do not think so.

[sendler]

It's important to know about the relationship of the ER/ EI of liquid fuel and the world economy.
.
"The prosperity and stability of modern society is inextricably linked to the production and consumption of energy, especially oil (Odum, 1973, Hall et al., 1986, Hall and Klitgaard, 2012; Tverberg, 2012).

Economic production, exchange and growth requires work and consequently a steady and consistent flow of energy to do that work. Longer intervals of sustained economic growth in countries and the world have been punctuated by numerous oscillations; i.e. there are periods of economic expansion but also recession. In general, the growth of real GDP is highly correlated with rates of oil consumption (Murphy et al., 2011). Four out of the five recessions experienced since 1970 can be explained by examining oil price shocks."
.
"Thus society seems to be caught in a dilemma unlike anything experienced in the last few centuries. During that time most problems (such as needs for more agricultural output, worker pay, transport, pensions, schools and social services) were solved by throwing more technology investments and energy at the problem. In many senses this approach worked, for many of these problems were resolved or at least ameliorated, although at each step populations grew so that more potential issues had to be served. In a general sense all of this was possible only because there was an abundance of cheap (i.e. high EROI) high quality energy, mostly oil, gas or electricity. We believe that the future is likely to be very different, for while there remains considerable energy in the ground it is unlikely to be exploitable cheaply, or eventually at all, because of its decreasing EROI. Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as past oil and gas when backup costs are considered. In addition there are increasing costs everywhere pertaining to potential climate changes and other pollutants. Any transition to solar energies would require massive investments of fossil fuels. Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—we see no easy solution to these issues when EROI is considered. If any resolution to these problems is possible it is probable that it would have to come at least as much from an adjustment of society's aspirations for increased material affluence and an increase in willingness to share as from technology. Unfortunately recent political events do not leave us with great optimism that such changes in societal values will be forthcoming."
.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13003856#bib37
.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

the UN gives the maltives millions of dollars to relocate their islands population because of global warming and they take the money and build multiple multimillion dollar resorts, on the beach of their island that's supposedly going to be under water in a few years.

I know some one who went on vacation here. The resorts are more beautiful and luxurious than anything I can imagine. From what I saw it looks dream like.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

If any resolution to these problems is possible it is probable that it would have to come at least as much from an adjustment of society's aspirations for increased material affluence and an increase in willingness to share as from technology.

In the 1960s it was rendered as "There's enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyones greed."

[niky]

I. Me. Mine.

That's always been at the root of climate legislation resistance. And it's why organized resistance is politically agnostic (domain of both ultra-left and ultra-right). Because it's SEP (somebody else's problem) right up until the point it isn't, when it's your backyard that's flooding or your geriatric population that's keeling over in the heat. That's why China flipped the flop.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know some one who went on vacation here. The resorts are more beautiful and luxurious than anything I can imagine. From what I saw it looks dream like.

Short term profit versus long term peril.

Make enough money and you can move when the time comes.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That was Obama administration thinking.
Don't worry about the terrorists, worry about pollution and sea level rise. Even though the air and water are cleaner then they have been in decades.
Luckily the grown-ups are back I charge.

Terrorism is horrific, evil, and worthy of fighting against, but it poses such a miniscule threat to Americans in the scheme of things.

"From 1995-2016, more than 3,658 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks worldwide. Of those, 3,277 Americans were killed in attacks in the United States – 2,902 in the September 11 Attacks alone."

Fact Sheet: American Deaths in Terrorist Attacks, 1995-2016 | START.umd.edu

That works out to 174 people per year. To put that in context suicide kills 44,193 Americans per year, and to put that into context, 2,626,418 total people die in the US every year. Terrorism ranks much lower than fatalities due to ladder falls, which claim 300 lives per year.

The grown-ups should wage war against obesity if they really wanted to protect their citizens and improve quality of life. Our biggest enemy is ourselves in every sense, but it's impossible to get people into a frenzy to overcome their own problems, and childsplay to channel anger at others to distract us from the enemy within.

The only way I'm affected by terrorism is that my fingernail clippers and shaving cream get confiscated at the airport after having slowly funneled through the cattle chute. That, and a not insignificant portion of my treasure that is confiscated in the name of keeping me safe.

I'm always saying that global warming is relatively low on the threat to human well-being, but terrorism is also very low. From the perspective of distracting people from issues that really matter, I can see little difference between the administrations.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Try living with out them.
Unless you live on an off grid ranch/farm you cant.

So, hydroelectric dams are bad, because they occasionally fail and kill people - but fossil fuels are okay, even though they continue to kill millions of people every year?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That was Obama administration thinking.
Don't worry about the terrorists, worry about pollution and sea level rise. Even though the air and water are cleaner then they have been in decades.
Luckily the grown-ups are back I charge.

What are those long-haired hippy military planners thinking of?

[oil pan 4]

Dams are fine with me I don't live around any.
People just need to be aware of the danger.

The one article you linked said in the first or second sentence that motor vehicles generate the majorty of the deadly air pollution.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What are those long-haired hippy military planners thinking of?

[Checks it is The Lounge, steps up]

They rejected the hard coup option in 2008 and started planning. What we have now is a soft counter-coup. It's real, people are dying. A lot of mind-boggling stuff has already gone down (like the Whidbey Island missile) but it all culminates in January 2019. When the treasonous civilians can go up in front of Military courts. All Kabuki until then. Stormy Daniels lawyer works for free?