User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #21
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    As a luke warmist who accepts some degree of climate change, the question I have to ask is how do we approach solutions to this problem?

    Do we follow the liberals, hand it all over to the government to spend money we don't have tied to various socialist equality agendas? IPCC Models: Climate Policies Likely to be More Expensive than Global Warming Damage during this Century is an in-depth analysis that says depending on the government is a losing proposition.

    Or do we depend on the market to innovate solutions that we the people buy into? I refer you to Bjorn Lomborg, for example, Climate change activists are focused on all the wrong solutions.
    It is obvious to me that we can't depend on the market place entirely for solutions. The governments of the world need to place a price on the emission of carbon dioxide. The burning of coal and oil

    needs to be gradually phased out. I am in favor of nuclear energy as part of the solution and that requires government involvement. If the world wants to limit the global mean temperature rise to

    1.5 degrees C. that will require around a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. This isn't going to happen. It is possible to limit the GMT to 2.0

    degrees C. and this is considered a dangerous level but it is better than 2.5 degrees C. and much better than 3.0 degrees C.

  2. #22
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    Before they got into this faith, the Warmalarmies had proved to be enemies of human progress. That's why many of us don't take seriously anything new they get into. We don't have to bone up on the issue; there's no reason to bother debating boneheads. It would be the same way if any other fringe group made a new addition to its agenda. The media have a special fondness for the New Age creeps, they been promoting this spoiled degenerate trash since the 60s. That's the only reason this toxic cult has not been relegated to the tabloids.
    This isn't a fringe group unless you consider every major relevant scientific organization in the world as fringe groups. It is the science and the conclusions made from scientific studies plus

    the evidence from what is happening to the planet and the biosphere that is motivating public opinion.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 12-06-2019 at 02:55 PM.

  3. #23
    Points: 665,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433308
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,542
    Points
    665,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,981
    Thanked 80,897x in 54,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    It is obvious to me that we can't depend on the market place entirely for solutions. The governments of the world need to place a price on the emission of carbon dioxide. The burning of coal and oil

    needs to be gradually phased out. I am in favor of nuclear energy as part of the solution and that requires government involvement. If the world wants to limit the global mean temperature rise to

    1.5 degrees C. that will require around a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. This isn't going to happen. It is possible to limit the GMT to 2.0

    degrees C. and this is considered a dangerous level but it is better than 2.5 degrees C. and much better than 3.0 degrees C.

    It's not clear to me why that's obvious but "plac[ing] a price on the emission of carbon dioxide" is a sort of market solution, a combination political-economic solution based on incentives and trade.

    As for phasing fossil fuel out, let it happen naturally as extraction costs rise and alternative energy sources offer lower costs. Marketing can help sell it. in the interim, oil and gas companies can use their current profits to invest in a future of alternatives. Sweeping that away sweeps away private funding.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. #24
    Points: 32,272, Level: 43
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    15009
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12,431
    Points
    32,272
    Level
    43
    Thanks Given
    9,384
    Thanked 2,249x in 1,927 Posts
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Gaia Is Even More Satanic Than Allah

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Cultural values, supported and inspired by creating high-paying jobs and inexpensive products through the uninhibited development of natural resources, are being crushed under the weight of cult values.
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders

    We won't live free until the Democrats, and their voters, live in fear.

  5. #25
    Points: 32,272, Level: 43
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    15009
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    12,431
    Points
    32,272
    Level
    43
    Thanks Given
    9,384
    Thanked 2,249x in 1,927 Posts
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Glory to the French for Sinking Greenpeace's Ship

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The extinction of the human race won't happen but the fatalities could be in the billions give a few hundred years of time. An increase in the mean global temperature of about 3 degrees C. (relative to 1850) that persists for

    around 200 years could result in the complete melt down of Greenland and Antarctica. That would cause 220 feet of sea level rise plus very inhospitable weather.
    Long ago, we should have piped that melt into the continents and ended drought forever.

    But more important is that the Warmalarmists' anti-growth focus on Antarctica is meant to push into silence and false irrelevance the fact that the underlying land mass of that continent has enough developable resources to create widespread prosperity and total funding for the advancement of scientists to create even more.

    Once again, the Leftist Warmalarmists are subconscious agents of the Right Wing. First, the development of resources is the best way to create class mobility, which pretty much used to be the whole story of our country. But that would threaten the Birth-Class Supremacy we've been under shortly after the sons of the working class won World War II. So it was blocked by the anti-growth Antarctica Treaty in 1960. initiating our dwindling national wealth.

    Second, Conservation is nothing but hoarding, creating artificial scarcities to increase profit margins for the openly Right Wing and their spoiled-putrid heirs. If a lake full of diamonds was discovered, the diamond barons would pay some flunkie scientists to say that widespread use of what would now be cheap diamonds would reflect sunlight back into space and cause Global Cooling. That's how vicious and dishonest these bitter and vindictive nerdy scientists are. They are B-students jealous of A-students. Don't be suckers and believe that these creeps are harmless idealists and at least deserve some respect for their academic achievements. The human race needs these real Antarctic resources now and needs idealists-with-an-agenda never.
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders

    We won't live free until the Democrats, and their voters, live in fear.

  6. #26
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    Long ago, we should have piped that melt into the continents and ended drought forever.

    But more important is that the Warmalarmists' anti-growth focus on Antarctica is meant to push into silence and false irrelevance the fact that the underlying land mass of that continent has enough developable resources to create widespread prosperity and total funding for the advancement of scientists to create even more.

    Once again, the Leftist Warmalarmists are subconscious agents of the Right Wing. First, the development of resources is the best way to create class mobility, which pretty much used to be the whole story of our country. But that would threaten the Birth-Class Supremacy we've been under shortly after the sons of the working class won World War II. So it was blocked by the anti-growth Antarctica Treaty in 1960. initiating our dwindling national wealth.

    Second, Conservation is nothing but hoarding, creating artificial scarcities to increase profit margins for the openly Right Wing and their spoiled-putrid heirs. If a lake full of diamonds was discovered, the diamond barons would pay some flunkie scientists to say that widespread use of what would now be cheap diamonds would reflect sunlight back into space and cause Global Cooling. That's how vicious and dishonest these bitter and vindictive nerdy scientists are. They are B-students jealous of A-students. Don't be suckers and believe that these creeps are harmless idealists and at least deserve some respect for their academic achievements. The human race needs these real Antarctic resources now and needs idealists-with-an-agenda never.
    Are you saying that it would be a good idea to intentionally melt the ice covering Antarctica?

    What dwindling of the national wealth since 1960 are you talking about?

    You are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists are dishonest with no evidence. I assume that you are claiming a broad conspiracy among the scientific community.

  7. #27
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Are you saying that it would be a good idea to intentionally melt the ice covering Antarctica?

    What dwindling of the national wealth since 1960 are you talking about?

    You are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists are dishonest with no evidence. I assume that you are claiming a broad conspiracy among the scientific community.
    Yes, they cooked the books.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  8. #28
    Points: 3,828, Level: 14
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    atheist4thecause's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    109
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    246
    Points
    3,828
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    37
    Thanked 99x in 69 Posts
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    How did you conclude that the coastline will only move a few miles? The diagram that is attached to your post shows the coastlines on the east and west coasts moving inwards by 100 miles

    or more. Florida is completely under water and so is most of California. Many heavily populated cities and islands in the NE U.S. like New York City and Long Island would be submerged.
    Because that's if all of the ice in the world melted. The threat we are facing is only two major regions. The rest of the ice has survived much warmer periods of time, and scientists don't think that could realistically melt anytime soon even with global warming. So that's judging based off a rise in sea level of around 230 feet, whereas we are realistically only facing a rise of about 15 feet realistically.

  9. #29
    Points: 3,828, Level: 14
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    atheist4thecause's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    109
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    246
    Points
    3,828
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    37
    Thanked 99x in 69 Posts
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The extinction of the human race won't happen but the fatalities could be in the billions give a few hundred years of time. An increase in the mean global temperature of about 3 degrees C. (relative to 1850) that persists for

    around 200 years could result in the complete melt down of Greenland and Antarctica. That would cause 220 feet of sea level rise plus very inhospitable weather.
    Do you realize how much technology will advance and how much we can change our behavior in a few hundred years? This is not realistic scenario.

  10. #30
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I misunderstood the statement by the Sage of Main Street about piping the melting ice of Antarctica into the continents. That seems impractical. Mining the continent of Antarctica would also be a challenge.

    Mining in Antarctica http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-a...geology/mining

    There are deposits of minerals such as coal and iron ore in Antarctica, but there are vast economic and technical difficulties associated with the recovery of mineral deposits. The Antarctic ice cover is, on average, 2.5 km thick and this means that very little of the land is accessible for exploration, so work would have to take place under the ice sheet. The difficult Antarctic conditions, even when the technology works well elsewhere, make exploitation unlikely.
    Once minerals are mined, Antarctica is a long way from world markets, and material would have to be transported over the treacherous Southern Ocean. Cheaper sources exist elsewhere in the world, and these will be exploited before Antarctic sources.
    So far, the economics of extracting resources from the harsh Antarctic environment have prevented any commercial operations, but Antarctica’s climate may not protect its minerals indefinitely. What can prevent such exploitation is a strong, well-supported international agreement. Nations of the Antarctic Treaty system agreed in 1991 to put a halt to the exploitation of minerals when they signed a comprehensive Protocol on Environmental Protection (the Madrid Protocol), which banned mining in Antarctica indefinitely. This important agreement came into force in January 1998.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to skepticalmike For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-07-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts