Fatal blow to Climate Denial

[freebeard]

What's your point?

I'd go this far, if aerohead were to read Chan Thomas, I would set aside the time to view the expanded version of that which I did have time for.

Oops, gotta run.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Obviously, she's unacquainted with the 'facts', and facts cannot be argued, so why waste precious time on her?
It would be impossible for her to argue based upon scientific merit.
Who owns Media Gab? Koch Industries?

It's obviously a hoax. None of the proposed solutions "fix" the problem unless it gives government more money, power or control.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I thought about taking out the analogy because arguing by analogy is usually dumb, and I see many flaws with it.

My main points being, unilateral action is ineffective, and per-capita CO2 is not a fair criteria for negotiating national limits because it ignores the growing capita portion of the CO2 equation.

This is precisely what makes peaceful agreement among all nations an impossible task.

It seems more probable that technology will continue to mitigate the problem rather than some genius politician that brokers a deal, saving the day.

1) Between 1750 and 2000, humans have put 2- Quadrillion-pounds of carbon into the atmosphere.
2) Between 1983 and 2018, USA economic costs, attributed to extreme weather events was $ 1.5-Trillion ( $ 41.666-Billion/year ).
3) At 'business as usual', David Wallace-Wells, New America Foundation, estimates $ 600-Trillion in losses by 2100.
4) In 2021 dollars, Direct Carbon Capture and Sequestration is estimated to run $ 5- Trillion/year, for 79-years ( $395-Trillion ) to reduce atmospheric carbon down to the 350ppm target.
5) We were given the 'ounce of prevention' in 1958.
6) We're presently staring down the barrel of, well-in-excess of, a 'pound of cure.'
7) I share no optimism in innovation and technological prowess.

[redpoint5]

#3 and #4 are entirely unrelated.

There will be more loss due to storms in the future because there will be much more stuff as all nations increase in wealth and population continues to grow.

Spending $400T will not prevent the $600T loss because a. storms exist regardless of climate change, and b. global climate is very slow to respond to human activity

People aren't going to be cool spending $1T per year to turn the outdoor thermostat down when some people don't have medical healthcare, or drug addicts are defiling cities. Outdoor thermostat is something you think about after all the other problems people face have been solved.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) Between 1750 and 2000, humans have put 2- Quadrillion-pounds of carbon into the atmosphere.
2) Between 1983 and 2018, USA economic costs, attributed to extreme weather events was $ 1.5-Trillion ( $ 41.666-Billion/year ).
3) At 'business as usual', David Wallace-Wells, New America Foundation, estimates $ 600-Trillion in losses by 2100.
4) In 2021 dollars, Direct Carbon Capture and Sequestration is estimated to run $ 5- Trillion/year, for 79-years ( $395-Trillion ) to reduce atmospheric carbon down to the 350ppm target.

xkcd.com/2610/

5) We were given the 'ounce of prevention' in 1958.

We could've adopted geodesic domes and reverse tricycles in the 1970s -- We collectively chose not to. You can see the result today.

Originally Posted by DDG

https://www.nytimes.com › 1975 › 07 › 06 › archives › bucky-fuller-and-the-final-exam-to-be-against-technology-is-to-be.html
Bucky Fuller and the Final Exam - The New York Times
6 Jul 1975
"Up to now we have been permitted ignorance. We have been permitted selfishness. With selfishness to drive us, with technology exploited solely to make money, we have managed during my lifetime to...

Originally Posted by aerohead

7) I share no optimism in innovation and technological prowess.

I lament it's
1)absence
2)dearth
3)inadequacy
4)paucity
5)shortage
6)shortfall
7)abridgement
8)deficit
9)exiguity

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

#3 and #4 are entirely unrelated.

There will be more loss due to storms in the future because there will be much more stuff as all nations increase in wealth and population continues to grow.

Spending $400T will not prevent the $600T loss because a. storms exist regardless of climate change, and b. global climate is very slow to respond to human activity

People aren't going to be cool spending $1T per year to turn the outdoor thermostat down when some people don't have medical healthcare, or drug addicts are defiling cities. Outdoor thermostat is something you think about after all the other problems people face have been solved.

1) $ 600-trillion with no action.
2) Scientists say 350ppm is the target.
3) 350ppm costs $ 400-trillion.
4) You don't have a habitable planet if you don't spend the $.
5) Earth's geologic record indicates for 'abrupt' climate change.
6) It appears that you don't comprehend 'non-linearity.'
7) It appears that you don't comprehend positive, self-reinforcing feedback loops.
8) I believe that is was the Younger Dryas which demonstrated that the climate can make rapid swings on a 13-year time-scale.

[redpoint5]

I'm extremely suspicious of any claim to solve the "climate crisis" if only we empower the Great Savior while surrendering liberty and money.

It costs zero dollars to reduce CO2, as it's economic activity which is driving it. Therefore the way to reduce CO2 emissions is to live in poverty and don't have many children.

It's an intractable problem at the moment, which is why various "genius" schemes to address it have failed. Heck, the most effective thing to date to reduce CO2 emissions occurred by chance (or accident) when the WuFlu decimated the global economy.

As always, I'm not arguing for ignoring the situation or do nothing, just saying only a great fool believes in benevolent genius leadership, and spending your way out of an extremely complex problem. Any effective strategy must incorporate fundamental human motivation or it will be doomed to failure.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm extremely suspicious of any claim to solve the "climate crisis" if only we empower the Great Savior while surrendering liberty and money.

It costs zero dollars to reduce CO2, as it's economic activity which is driving it. Therefore the way to reduce CO2 emissions is to live in poverty and don't have many children.

It's an intractable problem at the moment, which is why various "genius" schemes to address it have failed. Heck, the most effective thing to date to reduce CO2 emissions occurred by chance (or accident) when the WuFlu decimated the global economy.

As always, I'm not arguing for ignoring the situation or do nothing, just saying only a great fool believes in benevolent genius leadership, and spending your way out of an extremely complex problem. Any effective strategy must incorporate fundamental human motivation or it will be doomed to failure.

1) 'Solving' the climate crisis was always the easy part.
2) As with anything else, you'd defer to those with the specialized knowledge.
3) You'd do what works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The real challenge has been the 'implications' of the solution, as borne out in the PBS FRONTLINE special.
5) I can confidently surmise that all your reservations about climate 'solutions' were crafted by the people who are showcased on the program, paid for by the people showcased on the program.
6) The 'fundamental human nature' aspect will fall to the same type of people who crafted climate denial.
7) 72-hours is all they need. You can see it with what the media did with Ukraine.
8) The market place is where it's going to happen or not.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) 'Solving' the climate crisis was always the easy part.
2) As with anything else, you'd defer to those with the specialized knowledge.
3) You'd do what works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The real challenge has been the 'implications' of the solution, as borne out in the PBS FRONTLINE special.
5) I can confidently surmise that all your reservations about climate 'solutions' were crafted by the people who are showcased on the program, paid for by the people showcased on the program.
6) The 'fundamental human nature' aspect will fall to the same type of people who crafted climate denial.
7) 72-hours is all they need. You can see it with what the media did with Ukraine.
8) The market place is where it's going to happen or not.

1,2,3- As the WuFlu showcased, problems are never 1-dimensional. You don't put Fauci in charge of everything to respond to WuFlu, because disease mitigation is not the only thing to be concerned with. A wise person is informed by expert specialists, but understands the myopic lens through which they view things. If we wanted to maximally control the spread of WuFlu, we'd put every person into their own isolated box for a month. Since WuFlu isn't the only issue to be concerned with, and we understand human behavior, we realize that isn't a good solution.

Similarly, global warming isn't the only issue to be concerned with. Listening to whatever the most extreme opinion of what should be done would be disastrous because it wouldn't take into account all of the other factors related to living well.

4- I don't know what "The Solution" is you're referring to, but certainly the implications of all the extreme plans like the Green New Deal are precisely why they are untenable.

5- All of my opinions have been formed over the years of simply observing human motivation and truth seeking. I don't listen to right-wing media, so if anything in my liberal environment, I'm bombarded with more of the extreme left rhetoric. My opinions are a departure from the narrative, not an adherence to it.

6- Pointing out flaws in "The Plan" isn't synonymous with climate denial. It's merely pointing out flaws. The Frontline documentary doesn't even show climate denialism so much as it shows how everyone most informed on the subject knew how impossible it was to solve.

Answer this- if Exxon had given up entirely on the oil business when they discovered fossil fuel consumption contributes to climate change, how do you think anything would be different?

Do you think we'd all be flying around in solar powered aircraft, or do you think Exxon would simply have gone bankrupt while some other oil company swooped in to fulfill the demand for oil?

Exxon seriously researched the options, realized that solar powered flying cars wasn't likely, and decided to continue doing what they were already expert at. Nothing evil about that. Nice that we have access to their privately funded research for free. Don't hear anyone saying thank you for that. Like giving a gift and hearing "you suck" as a response.

If anything the documentary exposes how culpable all of humanity is, and the levels of mental gymnastics they will go through to vilify others to maintain the illusion of purity.

7- Don't get this reference. I don't follow the "news". Agreed that people are quickly brainwashed by deceit though. How many people still believe the "drink bleach" hoax, for example? People are generally sheeple, so that's no surprise. They let others do the thinking for them, and then fool themselves into believing they've done the thinking.

8- Of course, which is mostly what I've been saying. EVs aren't here because some genius politician dreamed up a regressive tax subsidy to the wealthy to purchase them, but because it was the right time in the evolution of technology for them to exist. The economic incentive to improve efficiency is sufficient to drive the millions of iterations in efficiency to come across all industries. The prospect of "free energy" from the sun is motivation enough to exploit it to the fullest extent technology allows, for example. Don't need some highfalutin Great Leader telling us his genius idea of utilizing sunlight.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

1,2,3- As the WuFlu showcased, problems are never 1-dimensional. You don't put Fauci in charge of everything to respond to WuFlu, because disease mitigation is not the only thing to be concerned with. A wise person is informed by expert specialists, but understands the myopic lens through which they view things. If we wanted to maximally control the spread of WuFlu, we'd put every person into their own isolated box for a month. Since WuFlu isn't the only issue to be concerned with, and we understand human behavior, we realize that isn't a good solution.

Similarly, global warming isn't the only issue to be concerned with. Listening to whatever the most extreme opinion of what should be done would be disastrous because it wouldn't take into account all of the other factors related to living well.

4- I don't know what "The Solution" is you're referring to, but certainly the implications of all the extreme plans like the Green New Deal are precisely why they are untenable.

5- All of my opinions have been formed over the years of simply observing human motivation and truth seeking. I don't listen to right-wing media, so if anything in my liberal environment, I'm bombarded with more of the extreme left rhetoric. My opinions are a departure from the narrative, not an adherence to it.

6- Pointing out flaws in "The Plan" isn't synonymous with climate denial. It's merely pointing out flaws. The Frontline documentary doesn't even show climate denialism so much as it shows how everyone most informed on the subject knew how impossible it was to solve.

Answer this- if Exxon had given up entirely on the oil business when they discovered fossil fuel consumption contributes to climate change, how do you think anything would be different?

Do you think we'd all be flying around in solar powered aircraft, or do you think Exxon would simply have gone bankrupt while some other oil company swooped in to fulfill the demand for oil?

Exxon seriously researched the options, realized that solar powered flying cars wasn't likely, and decided to continue doing what they were already expert at. Nothing evil about that. Nice that we have access to their privately funded research for free. Don't hear anyone saying thank you for that. Like giving a gift and hearing "you suck" as a response.

If anything the documentary exposes how culpable all of humanity is, and the levels of mental gymnastics they will go through to vilify others to maintain the illusion of purity.

7- Don't get this reference. I don't follow the "news". Agreed that people are quickly brainwashed by deceit though. How many people still believe the "drink bleach" hoax, for example? People are generally sheeple, so that's no surprise. They let others do the thinking for them, and then fool themselves into believing they've done the thinking.

8- Of course, which is mostly what I've been saying. EVs aren't here because some genius politician dreamed up a regressive tax subsidy to the wealthy to purchase them, but because it was the right time in the evolution of technology for them to exist. The economic incentive to improve efficiency is sufficient to drive the millions of iterations in efficiency to come across all industries. The prospect of "free energy" from the sun is motivation enough to exploit it to the fullest extent technology allows, for example. Don't need some highfalutin Great Leader telling us his genius idea of utilizing sunlight.

1) COVID wasn't a product sold on the global market.
2) There weren't COVID cartels and trade organizations.
3) There weren't carnival barker lobbyists from the Big- COVID financing congressional election and re-election campaigns.) Big-COVID wasn't President.
Big-COVID wasn't White House Chief of Staff.
Big-COVID wasn't Secretary of State, Energy, Representatives, Senators.
COVID really isn't germane to a climate conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The plan would be to get off fossil-fuel as fast as we could and remove extant carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere, down to at least 350ppm.
The Green New Deal would be 'free' compared to what business as usual will cost.
5) Beware of 'truths.'
6) Those who 'knew' about climate change already understood that we faced doing the 'impossible' as not doing it would take us to the 'unthinkable.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Exxon had 'owned' the reality of the situation, rather than obfuscate, we would have had an early start on resolving the issue. The USA could have had a national energy strategy. Public education could have educated. Bring the full force of innovation and R&D to the table. Ease ourselves off the fossil-fuel teat. Buy time. Move investments. Get rich differently. Demand for oil would decline incrementally. There would be no void to fill. With alternates, people wouldn't touch the stuff. Exxon was already into photovoltaics. They would have been rewarded (I rewarded Atlantic Richfield Corporation ( ARCO ) for theirs! ). Exxon was in lithium ( that's workin' out pretty good right now! ). Exxon is already in a criminal trial in a US District Court ( Juliana vs United States ), We'll see how that goes.
7) It takes about 72-hours to start a war, whether with a country, drugs, or heating planet. That part's easy.
8) The economy IS where we'll do it, or not. Carrots are better than sticks. Sticks suffice when there's no options. President Woodrow Wilson suspended the 1st-Amendment in 1918, when he thought the security of the nation swung in the balance. Machiavellian. Art of War.