The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

Dummy-speak in print:

https://media.patriots.win/post/672kyYgQMrGN.jpeg

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

So in dummy speak, we're going to freeze to death because it is getting warmer?

Precisely

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

So in dummy speak, we're going to freeze to death because it is getting warmer?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Precisely

Why is it that global warming and climate change are a thing only if they decimate the world population by burning everyone up to a crisp or freeze drying them?

Do tariffs either pour billions of free dollars into all of our pockets so Americans never have to work again or do they make everything 2,000,000% more expensive?

Is the difference between a Model T and an Aptera that one gets .0000000000000002 MPG and the other you have to discharge several kilowatt-hours into the grid every 5 minutes so it doesn't overcharge?

OH! I'm not being instantly obliterated from climate change! It must be fake news!

Look, if you don't believe in something, that's fine for you. But I know that there are more hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires and other life killing weather as well as more desertification of the Earths surface, more dying coral reefs and far fewer species than before and animal populations all together have dropped some 73% in the past 50 years, all due to humankind.

[freebeard]

OH! I'm not being instantly obliterated from climate change! It must be fake news!

It's like you are channeling aerohead.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Why is it that global warming and climate change are a thing only if they decimate the world population by burning everyone up to a crisp or freeze drying them?

Both extremes in position are wrong, but all of it is a moot point because the experiment will be played out regardless. We either discover better (better meaning cheaper, more useful) alternatives for energy and the millions of products we produce with hydrocarbons, or the experiment plays out as is.

Nobody is going to voluntarily commit cultural suicide (well, maybe the whacky Europeans), so there is no mechanism to curtail global oil consumption short of thermonuclear war with China and Russia... and the reconstruction would consume enormous amounts of oil.

So, climate deniers and climate catastrophists opinions don't matter. It's an entirely pointless discussion except for having some fun speculating about the future given ever increasing CO2 concentrations, both positive and negative.

Do tariffs either pour billions of free dollars into all of our pockets so Americans never have to work again or do they make everything 2,000,000% more expensive?

It's a negotiating tactic. When implemented using game-theory tested strategy, it's an important tool. When implemented on whim, we might suffer increased prices.

Inflation is mostly a function of too many dollars chasing too few goods. I wonder what recent actions had caused the value of the dollar to plummet 1/3rd, keeping in mind that it's too many dollars chasing too few goods? It's the primary reason I have disdain for the political parties, because they are indistinguishable from each other on basic economics.

Is the difference between a Model T and an Aptera that one gets .0000000000000002 MPG and the other you have to discharge several kilowatt-hours into the grid every 5 minutes so it doesn't overcharge?

I'm completely lost on the topic of a Model T and Aptera.

Look, if you don't believe in something, that's fine for you. But I know that there are more hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires and other life killing weather as well as more desertification of the Earths surface, more dying coral reefs and far fewer species than before and animal populations all together have dropped some 73% in the past 50 years, all due to humankind.

Your knowledge is incomplete then, because the earth has substantially greened as a result of increased CO2 concentration. More growth (which is stored energy) would supply more fuel in a potential fire. Perhaps we want more deserts to reduce fire danger? My 2-second thought on the topic is to increase controlled burns (we can choose the conditions of a burn, or allow nature to choose for us, there has never been the option of no fire), and build infrastructure that minimizes fire loss.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Both extremes in position are wrong, but all of it is a moot point because the experiment will be played out regardless.

Agreed. But I don't think society is going to get any better even if we abolish any effort into reducing pollution and go all out on making the economy better. But again it's a moot point, because if world war 3 is going to happen, it's going to happen, regardless if I drive an EV, diesel or pair of roller skates.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's a negotiating tactic. When implemented using game-theory tested strategy, it's an important tool. When implemented on whim, we might suffer increased prices.

Inflation is mostly a function of too many dollars chasing too few goods. I wonder what recent actions had caused the value of the dollar to plummet 1/3rd, keeping in mind that it's too many dollars chasing too few goods? It's the primary reason I have disdain for the political parties, because they are indistinguishable from each other on basic economics.

I'm completely lost on the topic of a Model T and Aptera.

Sorry to have overdone the comparison. The point was just blurting out extremes make no sense.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Your knowledge is incomplete then, because the earth has substantially greened as a result of increased CO2 concentration. More growth (which is stored energy) would supply more fuel in a potential fire. Perhaps we want more deserts to reduce fire danger? My 2-second thought on the topic is to increase controlled burns (we can choose the conditions of a burn, or allow nature to choose for us, there has never been the option of no fire), and build infrastructure that minimizes fire loss.

Are we talking about in the past 50 years, or the time within mankind's existence, or since Earth was formed? Are we talking about mostly algae which in some areas ends up causing algae explosions which poison the waters they inhabit killing off other species like fish?

[freebeard]

Today, 03:22 PM #1784 (permalink)
__moments lay-ter
Last edited by Isaac Zachary; Today at 03:23 PM..

Look, if you don't believe in something, that's fine for you.

Mind reading. Not believing in something is like not collecting stamps.

As for what I do believe, it's this -- a change in temperature is not as significant as the pollution from countries like India and Chyna in driving the sixth extinction.

Save the Pangolins.

editL

But I don't think society is going to get any better even if we abolish any effort into reducing pollution and go all out on making the economy better.

I don't see how you can successfully reduce pollution without concomitantly making the economy better.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I don't see how you can successfully reduce pollution without concomitantly making the economy better.

Perhaps if a person could eliminate greed and egoism.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Perhaps if a person could eliminate greed and egoism.

and envy, gluttony and sloth.

[freebeard]

Perhaps if a person could eliminate greed and egoism.

Human nature is immutable. That would never happen. Work from first principles instead.