The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

The sooner we transition away from carbon energy,the sooner we'll get away from the entropy-trap of combustion,

Viktor Schauberger would have agreed. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=viktor+schauberger+repulsine+engine

I've told you three times now,that China and India are exempt from emissions until they reach industrial parity,as defined by the U.N..Concentrate on the Unites States.That's where you live,and have an impact.

Parity (definition) is the quality or state of being equal or equivalent. UN decides?

Drunks look for their lost car keys under the street light.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

This is the same song that global warming/cooling/ozone hole/etc. advocates have been singing for 60 years, we're all going to die if we don't do X within ten years, and yet there is no statistically significant change in climate in general, and humanity is still alive and thriving, and very much not dead.

Well you've succeeded in standing naked before the entire world,exposing the impoverishment of your mind.Obviously,you've never acquainted yourself with the actual climate science literature.Voodoo statistics are not your friend.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The IEA believes 7 out of 10 new vehicles sold in 2030 will still be gas burners.
What science says we have to stop burning fossil fuels with in a decade?
I hope you don't mean the laser ipcc report.
Because if that's your conclusion you obviously didn't read any of it.

I suppose those numbers were generated under certain assumptions,and between now and 2030,those parameters could change.
New cars have a 36-month product cycle, from genesis,to rolling off the assembly line.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I remember everyone was going to get skin cancer if we didn't ban cfc.
But the thing is higher levels of UV were never detected at inhabited latitudes.

New Zealand and Australia were directly exposed to an ozone hole excursion,and beach-goers are expected to eventually experience increased cataracts and skin cancer.
Where I live,in North Texas,the thinned ozone layer admits 7% more ionizing UV radiation than in pre-DuPont Earth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It's no where near new green deal levels.
Stated out in 2010 selling effectively 0% electric, 2020 might be 3%, 2030 will be at least 10% for sure and 30% I see as being really optimistic.

I saw an old TV show made in 1999, that particular episode was about the future 10 years later in 2009. So in 2009 almost all the cars were electric. I thought that was funny as there was only 1 mostly electric car for sale by 2009.
They say hindsight is 2020, I say hindsight is a bich.

Perhaps you've seen the White House,and U.S. Senate?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Not tundra but boreal forest. It doesn't happen overnight but neither does the change in climate. What they do have is lots of water, with technology soil is actually optional.

I always find it funny when the greatest minds like Stephen Hawkin say we must colonize space to survive. Maybe he is talking about some other event than climate change but even the most extreme changes worse than the planet has ever faced still make Earth the best home for humans that we know of or could reach.

The velocity of warming exceeds the velocity of possible migration.The flora will perish attempting to move pole-wards,or to higher elevation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So where in the ipcc report did they prove that we have to respond to the climate crisis now?
I have been reading this latest report and the only way anyone is going to draw that conclusion is if they control F search for the most sensational parts of the report, take those out of context, blow them way out of proportion and ignore all the other content.

Keep reading.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When I talk about riding the 4-wheeler fast because I enjoy having fun, my wife responds "I like having fun too; I just have a different threshold for fun". It sums up the difference between our personalities. She would rather do something well within her capabilities, even if it's a repeated task, and have people compliment her competency. I'd rather do something at the limit of my ability, and not repeat mundane things much.

I end up spending time upgrading things around the house, while she ends up doing a little more of the daily household tasks. I'm constantly striving to improve the way common tasks are executed, while she's just executing the tasks.

Going to the moon was the way to win against the USSR though. Perhaps we need to feel there is an existential opponent to compete with to get us to "do the other things".

I understand that those who view climate change as an existential threat would react similarly to when we viewed the USSR as an imminent existential threat, so I also understand the vitriol hurled at people who question the magnitude of the threat. I expect a similar reaction to "what's so bad about communism and gulags".

Do you associate starving American children with capitalism?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Do you associate starving American children with capitalism?

Yes, but in a negative correlation sort of way, and more broadly than just the US or The Americas.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Nature doesn't always work as the alarmists would like either. Nature is what nature is and believe it or not humans are part of nature. Just like pine beetles destroy their habitat to live, humans may do likewise. Nature will survive, it always has, always will, things just change.

Science on the other hand does say warming will help, science done when scientists were just looking for what might change... that is until the machine found out science was saying warming would help. Now there is a bunch of studies that needed to fix that possibility, because nature does need to behave the way they want.

I believe you're mistaken about what science says about warming.You'll find very little evidence to support your thesis.