The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Yeah, I was going to say that all these green initiatives that aren't reciprocated everywhere else will just have the effect of making those people poorer as business leaves.

[sendler]

"In this low EROI future, we simply have to accept the hard fact that we will not be able to sustain current levels of economic growth. “Meeting current or growing levels of energy need in the next few decades with low-carbon solutions will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,” the paper finds. The economic transition must involve efforts “to lower total energy use.” But capitalist markets will not be capable of facilitating the required changes — governments will need to step up, and institutions will need to actively shape markets to fit the goals of human survival. Right now, the prospects for this look slim. But the new paper argues that either way, change is coming."
.
https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...e-a679facac985

[NeilBlanchard]

Heat Wave Scorches Nature Down Under

A Green New Deal For All

Bangladesh’s Climate Migration Crisis

Beyond The Headlines

DYKSTRA: The 160th birthday of one of the leading lights of climate scientists, the chemist Svante Arrhenius, a Swede, born on February 18, 1859. He published one of the first definitive papers on what we now call the greenhouse effect. It turned out to be one of the biggest I-told-you-so's in the history of science, back in 1896 when he suggested that coal burning could impact temperatures in Europe.

CURWOOD: Well, he got that one right! So this Swede was a big deal scientist of his times, right?

DYKSTRA: That's right, Arrhenius was also involved in researching the Northern Lights, the aurora borealis, and he won the third ever Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on electrical conductivity. Happy 160, Svante Arrhenius!

Svante Arrhenius authored one of the first definitive papers on the greenhouse effect. (Photo: Personal Head shot, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

Neighborhood Burn Squads Fight Fire With Fire

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

9 billion people will still need food, shelter, and heat. All of which is currently provided by fossil fuel inputs.

I recommend having that lateral intraparietal cortex looked at.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If money is no object and you don't mind buying a truck that costs more than the average house, with a battery that will probably cost more than a tesla and will need to be replaced every 6 to 10 years.
My 2011 leaf got a new battery in 2014 and it will probably get another one in 2020.

A neighbor follows Tesla a bit.
Evidently,when one uses a Supercharger,the car's electronics are interrogated in real-time. The data streams,analyzed by Tesla, indicate that,if owners continue to behave as they are,then the trajectory for Tesla OEM packs reflect an anticipated 20-year lifespan,which is 8-years beyond the current statistical life of the mean average automobile.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Which contains the other? Isn't it more likely the material world will ultimately unhinge the economic fantasy?

I certainly hope so.However,with the continuing mantra of 'growing the (consumer) economy,'and an already $12,000/per capita debt,I don't know what power the proletariat will have to combat Madison Avenue's upcoming and innovative opiates,sold on zero-down,easy pay (for the rest of your life) reverse-savings architectures at a retailer near you.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

For our international audience: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+the+cow+eats+the+cabbage

The Green New Deal is the product of a specific world view. It envisions total government control of the economy. It's the end-game of the Frankfurt School Marxists.

The person AOC defeated (Crowley) would otherwise be the Speaker of the House, but even Nancy Pelosi isn't buying it. When the President called for unity in the SOTU address, she reached up and shifted her red and blue necklace to her right.

The last picture I saw of AOC, she had a tear rolling down her cheek.

edit:
It's hard to keep up. The Louisiana Purchase is socialism?

Yes.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My point isn't that I lack time to research (though I do as much as anyone else), it's that nobody is interested in researching the positive benefits of anything.

BTW, cold has killed far more people than heat, including during the hottest years on record, and the difference isn't even close (like a factor of 20 not close).

That's not what NASA and NOAA say.
If the 1-percenters have their own dedicated,full-time,weather satellite and terrestrial monitoring stations,different data,and analytic conclusions to counter extant claims,it would be a good time for them to come forward with their bonafides.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

#1

Need context. How much warming? Method(s) used? If landbased, how many stations used? How many stations added or deleted during the recorded period? Locations of added or deleted stations? Satellite data ? Ocean temp Satellite data was found to have had a algorithm problem. Supposedly corrected. Need a lot more info.

#2

How many people? What percentage? Has the percentage changed? How much has the population increased during the time period? What was the criteria used to determine the outcome? Has the criteria changed during the length of the study period?


#3

How many heated related deaths exactly? What is the criteria for heat related death? Has the criteria changed? Who determines heat related deaths?


#4

What is the percentage difference from previous years? What is the criteria? Has it changed over the years? Has the population increased? Who determines it heat related?

#5

In Arizona? The U.S.? The world? ???

By the year 2030 it is estimated that 1.2 Billion more people will be added to the face of the Earth for a total of 8.2 Billion.

250,000 as a percentage doesn’t even make a dent...


Percentages and numbers that are inter changed skew results.

Percentages and numbers mean nothing without context or methodology.


Just wanted to point it out.

(Not asking you to validate your post. We all have better things to do)








Edit

#5

Might be a world number.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...aths/27657269/






>

If the information is important enough,you'll pay better attention, be aware,and intercept it as it presents itself.
Since you're not already in possession of the information it infers a lack of interest,or failure on your part,to capture the data from your environment as it made itself available.
I'm not your boy.I'm not willing to turn on a dime and redirect my course of study predicated upon your interests.Perhaps,at my speed,over time,I would be able to flesh out data more fully.
If you're going to debate facts,you're going to have to do your own due diligence and build your own brief.
Data is always available online.
NATURE will be able to provide raw data.Research methodologies.Computer/statistical models employed. .Results.Probabilities,Conclusions,Discussion,Reco mmendations for further research.Any post-publishing corrections

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's going to be nothing compared to when electricity and gas infrastructure fail during a cold winter since only around 1 or 2% of people have home heating that will function with out electricity or gas.
A few million people could easily die after several days with no electricity and gas over a large area.

When that data emerges,it can be factored in, on a time-weighted basis,over a 30-year period,and we'll see how it changed the extant statistics.