There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/3/2019 at 3:07 PM, DJL said:

There IS a need for the world to act together so that everyone is on board and there WILL be more needed from the wealthier countries and from those countries that can make the most change, it will not be equitable.  The dollar signs matter less than the fact that we cannot continue on this path so where WILL be legislation that results in higher prices.  

And therein lies the problem.  Any politician passing legislation that raise prices for the American consumer in order to transfer wealth to other nations will not survive the next election.  Americans vote their pocket book.  Everyone wants to "save the planet" in the abstract but when faced with the cost of doing so change their tune.  Voters in Australia, Arizona, Colorado and even Washington have all rejected climate policy.  The French are rioting in the streets over a four cent gas tax, even the election of Trump was in part a rejection of the climate policies of the Dems.  Simply put, large scale climate policy (large enough to do anything) is not compatible with Democracy. That is why...….

 

"The well-known climate researcher James Hansen, who has been publicly sounding the alarm on global warming since his influential 1988 testimony before the U.S. Congress, summarized the general frustration when he asserted in 2007 that “the democratic process does not work.” In his 2009 book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock, another long-time scientific voice of warning, compares climate change to war, emphasizing that we need to abandon democracy to meet the challenges of climate change head on. To pull the world out of its state of lethargy,

“nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” is urgently needed."

Now there is a 2020 bumper sticker for ya

[billvon 3,088]

  On 9/3/2019 at 5:47 PM, brenthutch said:

In his 2009 book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock, another long-time scientific voice of warning, compares climate change to war, emphasizing that we need to abandon democracy to meet the challenges of climate change head on. To pull the world out of its state of lethargy,“nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” is urgently needed."

Yes.  We need to work as a republic, not a democracy.  It's how we solved the ozone layer problem, and it's how we will solve this.

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/3/2019 at 5:55 PM, billvon said:

Yes.  We need to work as a republic, not a democracy. 

That is very Glenn Beck of you.

Your CFC analogy falls flat once you peel back a few layers.

First, there were readily available replacements for CFCs (CO2 in some cases)

Second, the cost (as reported by the NYT) was three billion dollars.  Not 13 TRILLION dollars.  Big difference 

 

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/3/2019 at 5:40 PM, DJL said:

 the deck will stack to do much more damage.

That sound like Katherine Heyhoe, when pushed on why she can't show evidence of anthropogenic attribution to weather events she falls back on highly scientific jargon like "global weirding" " "loading the dice" and "stacking the deck".

[DJL 235]

  On 9/3/2019 at 6:16 PM, brenthutch said:

Second, the cost (as reported by the NYT) was three billion dollars.  Not 13 TRILLION dollars.  Big difference 

The cost of reversing the effects of Global Warming gets more and more expensive the longer we wait.  For example loss of coral reefs worldwide alone could mark a loss of $1 trillion annually is lost revenue.  Of note, that doesn't mean that money won't get spent it simply represents a loss to the industries and economies that operate via reefs.

But that's a win for you because you can charge a fee for them to visit your basement aquarium. (page 18)

https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2017/04/11/CC_Report_1.pdf 

Why would a country willfully allow its industries to collapse?

[DJL 235]

  On 9/3/2019 at 6:50 PM, brenthutch said:

That sound like Katherine Heyhoe, when pushed on why she can't show evidence of anthropogenic attribution to weather events she falls back on highly scientific jargon like "global weirding" " "loading the dice" and "stacking the deck".

Do you not understand that I was describing a combination of increases in sea level and increases in the frequency or stronger storms?  Anyway, have Katherine call me, I've already shown examples of all of those to you.

Edited September 3, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 3,088]

  On 9/3/2019 at 6:16 PM, brenthutch said:

That is very Glenn Beck of you.

 

I don't even know what that means, so . . .OK.

  Quote

Your CFC analogy falls flat once you peel back a few layers.  First, there were readily available replacements for CFCs (CO2 in some cases)

Not per CFC manufacturers.  CFC replacements, per them, were too expensive, inefficient, too scarce and far too disruptive to even consider.  Tens of thousands would die due to the lack of refrigeration!  Vaccines would go bad!  Fortunately we ignored the people with a financial stake in the outcome and did what was right, even though it was expensive.  There's a lesson there.

  Quote

Second, the cost (as reported by the NYT) was three billion dollars.  Not 13 TRILLION dollars.  Big difference 

Yep.  It will be expensive.  We'd have to forego five or six elective wars if we did it all ourselves - or one war under a more realistic scenario.  O the horror!  Less war!

[billvon 3,088]

  On 9/3/2019 at 6:50 PM, brenthutch said:

That sound like Katherine Heyhoe, when pushed on why she can't show evidence of anthropogenic attribution to weather events she falls back on highly scientific jargon like "global weirding" " "loading the dice" and "stacking the deck".

She sounds . . . just like you, in that case.

[BIGUN 1,438]

  On 9/3/2019 at 7:14 PM, billvon said:

you, in that case

So, I became a convert 11 years ago. At what point do you get frazzled enough to stop arguing with brick walls? 

[yobnoc 142]

When scientists say that there is a hurricane approaching, people rush out to stock up fuel, water, and bread.

When scientists say a tornado is coming, people shutter themselves in the cellar and hold their loved ones close.

When scientists say you have cancer, you bombard your body with radiation and chemical poison in a desperate attempt to go into remission or at least claim a few precious years more than if you hadn't.

When scientists say the world is on fucking fire, republicans shrug. 

 

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/4/2019 at 12:29 AM, yobnoc said:

When scientists say the world is on fucking fire......

 

This is just the mindless hyperbole I have been railing against.  So which is it, a slow moving disaster that won’t noticeably manifest itself for decades/generations or a hair on fire, immediate, existential, catastrophe?

[yobnoc 142]

  On 9/4/2019 at 12:59 AM, brenthutch said:

This is just the mindless hyperbole I have been railing against.  So which is it, a slow moving disaster that won’t noticeably manifest itself for decades/generations or a hair on fire, immediate, existential, catastrophe?

It's a frog in a pot of water with the flame on high underneath.

[billvon 3,088]

  On 9/4/2019 at 12:59 AM, brenthutch said:

This is just the mindless hyperbole I have been railing against.  So which is it, a slow moving disaster that won’t noticeably manifest itself for decades/generations or a hair on fire, immediate, existential, catastrophe?

No existential catastrophe.  That rich guy in Denver isn't going to die.  It's a slow moving disaster that's been gaining speed for about 50 years now.  Compare it to a freight train on an abandoned rail line.  It's slow to get moving, slow to stop.  And it's killing more and more people as it accelerates.  Should we try to stop it, or just wait until someone you care about is in its path and it's doing 75mph?

[brenthutch 444]

  On 8/31/2019 at 12:18 PM, gowlerk said:

It's a funny thing. Some people get all emotional and care about stuff like coral reefs and polar bears and shit. Other people get choked up about the possibility of gasoline costing a little more. Strange order of priorities.

When you care more about polar bears and coral reefs, (two things that most people have never seen in real life) than your family, then yes, you have your priorities mixed up, especially when you consider that a doubling of gas prices will not save a single polar bear or coral polyp.  BTW there are MORE polar bears now than when Al Gore featured the seal slaughtering carnivores in his award winning fiction An Inconvenient Truth.   

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/2/2019 at 4:17 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Can you link any reputable source that claims humans will be in real danger in the next decade?

Or are you just making shit up again?

There isn't any real overall threat coming in my lifetime (or yours).

So the idea that you will be 'rubbing people's noses' in it in a couple decades simply says you don't understand the reality of the situation..

We may do irreparable damage. We may reach a 'tipping point', a 'point of no return' where we won't be able to stop it.

But the real effects won't be dangerous to us for a while yet.

"When Beto O’Rourke unveiled a far-reaching $5 trillion plan to zero out emissions by 2050, exactly what the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have recommended, the Sunrise Movement trashed it as weak sauce that would fail to “give our generation a livable future.”"

“Intensity is what drives turnout,” (Tom) Steyer told me. “And climate lends itself to intensity. People are trying to kill your kids! Those are the facts. Why be polite?"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/03/climate-change-democratic-candidates-2020-227910

Edited September 4, 2019 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,859]

  On 9/4/2019 at 12:09 AM, BIGUN said:

So, I became a convert 11 years ago. At what point do you get frazzled enough to stop arguing with brick walls? 

In fairness Keith, many of us feel the same way about the fetal heartbeat argument. I personally don't think anyone has a snow balls chance in hell of moving Brent an inch. But maybe it happens, who knows. Your arguments on gun control certainly caused me to reexamine my way of looking at the problem. Everyone loves a surprise, right?

[normiss 868]

  On 9/4/2019 at 11:01 AM, brenthutch said:

When you care more about polar bears and coral reefs, (two things that most people have never seen in real life) than your family, then yes, you have your priorities mixed up, especially when you consider that a doubling of gas prices will not save a single polar bear or coral polyp.  BTW there are MORE polar bears now than when Al Gore featured the seal slaughtering carnivores in his award winning fiction An Inconvenient Truth.   

Legislation making it illegal to hunt polar bears worked.

There's another missed lesson there.

[billvon 3,088]

  On 9/4/2019 at 11:01 AM, brenthutch said:

When you care more about polar bears and coral reefs, (two things that most people have never seen in real life) than your family, then yes, you have your priorities mixed up, especially when you consider that a doubling of gas prices will not save a single polar bear or coral polyp.  BTW there are MORE polar bears now than when Al Gore featured the seal slaughtering carnivores in his award winning fiction An Inconvenient Truth.   

That's like saying you care more about your family than having an ozone layer (something you've probably never seen with your own eyes.)  Sure, it's boring, but your family would have a much higher incidence of cancer without it - so a smart person would care about it.

[BIGUN 1,438]

  On 9/4/2019 at 2:10 PM, JoeWeber said:

aused me to reexamine my way of looking at the problem. Everyone loves a surprise, right?

Gasp, Shock, Feint. . 

[DJL 235]

  On 9/4/2019 at 11:01 AM, brenthutch said:

When you care more about polar bears and coral reefs, (two things that most people have never seen in real life) than your family, then yes, you have your priorities mixed up, especially when you consider that a doubling of gas prices will not save a single polar bear or coral polyp.  BTW there are MORE polar bears now than when Al Gore featured the seal slaughtering carnivores in his award winning fiction An Inconvenient Truth.   

Or if you live far enough North, you care about polar bears, care about your family even more and are seeing too many polar bears because they've lost their habitat.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/12/residents-russian-town-invaded-polar-bears-forced-patrol-streets/

You do realize that people can be concerned about their family in the long term.  At the very least you don't want them saying "Our grandparents were idiots".

Edit:

Do you think the measures to combat climate change represent an existential threat to your family?

Edited September 4, 2019 by DJL

[BIGUN 1,438]

  On 9/4/2019 at 11:01 AM, brenthutch said:

When you care more about polar bears and coral reefs, (two things that most people have never seen in real life)

Please read this... https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/weather/climate-change-skeptic/index.html

Brother, there is an axiom in communications called, "Synergistic Perspective." It means combining the best of all cultural approaches in solving a problem. We learn more from people who are different than those who are similar. Ideas produced in diverse groups have significantly higher outcomes.It's one of the reasons I hang around in here. Sometimes, we can get pissed off about what people are saying, but it should lead to investigation - not reactance. 

I'm going to ask you to maybe get some reading material from Bill and see where his position is coming from. It's a sound position backed by scientific evidence. And,, when we use the data and extrapolate it out 40-50 years; our children & grandchildren may suffer much more than financial consequences.  

[DJL 235]

  On 9/4/2019 at 6:49 PM, BIGUN said:

Please read this

I don't think brother is going to get his mind changed by CNN.

[JoeWeber 2,859]

  On 9/4/2019 at 6:49 PM, BIGUN said:

Please read this... https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/weather/climate-change-skeptic/index.html

Brother, there is an axiom in communications called, "Synergistic Perspective." It means combining the best of all cultural approaches in solving a problem. We learn more from people who are different than those who are similar. Ideas produced in diverse groups have significantly higher outcomes.It's one of the reasons I hang around in here. Sometimes, we can get pissed off about what people are saying, but it should lead to investigation - not reactance. 

I'm going to ask you to maybe get some reading material from Bill and see where his position is coming from. It's a sound position backed by scientific evidence. And,, when we use the data and extrapolate it out 40-50 years; our children & grandchildren may suffer much more than financial consequences.  

I don't believe he doubts it so much as he doesn't think we should care because it's going to be "salubrious" and, even if it's not, only fools order and pay for things that aren't delivered until after we're dead. 

[brenthutch 444]

  On 9/4/2019 at 10:38 PM, JoeWeber said:

I don't believe he doubts it so much as he doesn't think we should care because it's going to be "salubrious" and, even if it's not, only fools order and pay for things that aren't delivered until after we're dead. 

 

  On 9/4/2019 at 10:38 PM, JoeWeber said:

I don't believe he doubts it so much as he doesn't think we should care because it's going to be "salubrious" and, even if it's not, only fools order and pay for things that aren't delivered until after we're dead. 

Actually, yes and yes.  Only fools order and pay for things that aren’t delivered until after they are dead. (At least that is the political reality).  If you guys really think otherwise I am throwing my intellectual pearls before swine.  Real talk. There will be no green new deal, there will be no carbon tax, there will be no ban on fossil fuels. CO2 will continue to rise for the rest of all our lifetimes. The only climate legislation  that will pass will be aspirational wish lists.  Any real attempt to reduce our CO2 footprint will be rejected by the voters.  It doesn’t matter if AGW is real, it doesn’t matter if AGW is a risk to the future of humanity.  The cold hard political reality is that none of your green utopian wet dream will come to fruition.  Sorry (not sorry) to be Captain Buzz Kill, but that is just how it is.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,259]

  On 9/5/2019 at 1:01 AM, brenthutch said:

Any real attempt to reduce our CO2 footprint will be rejected by the voters.  It doesn’t matter if AGW is real, it doesn’t matter if AGW is a risk to the future of humanity.  The cold hard political reality is that none of your green utopian wet dream will come to fruition.  Sorry (not sorry) to be Captain Buzz Kill, but that is just how it is.

For someone with such beliefs you sure do spend a lot of time fighting against something you seem to know won't happen. What are you so worried about? And why do you need to call other people's plans "wet dreams"? Is that some sort of repressed sexual hangup you struggle with?