More Climate BS...

#3,351
#3,351
OHvol40 said:
I wouldn’t call nearly every single person who has dedicated their careers to studying this branch of science “alarmist” when there is a consensus amongst them.

It’s like watching Pretti get shot in the back 10 times by the government and saying “well, have you considered that it could have been 10 meteors that hit him?”

Sure, that’s “possible” but unnecessary because we know what happened.
Click to expand...
I know it's complicated but can you give me a thumbnail sketch of what can be done by mankind to cool the entire planet? I'm not of the opinion that humans as of 2026 have access to a global thermostat
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and GroverCleveland
#3,356
#3,356
Sea Ray said:
I know it's complicated but can you give me a thumbnail sketch of what can be done by mankind to cool the entire planet? I'm not of the opinion that humans as of 2026 have access to a global thermostat
Click to expand...
The basic science is easy. Measurable gasses in a finite container, and the effects of changing the composition of the gasses in said finite container are known and measurable. The nuance lies in what to do about it. We are completely reliant on burning fossil fuels, so curbing that dependence and finding viable alternatives is crucial. Preparing for the changes that are coming is a component. The Paris accords lays a lot of the action plan out with the goal of keeping the ppm below 1.5c, but unfortunately the US has fallen into an anti-intellectual state of being and trends toward ignoring all of this.

The problem is that the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than the cost of trying to change our habits.
 
#3,359
#3,359
OHvol40 said:
The basic science is easy. Measurable gasses in a finite container, and the effects of changing the composition of the gasses in said finite container are known and measurable. The nuance lies in what to do about it. We are completely reliant on burning fossil fuels, so curbing that dependence and finding viable alternatives is crucial. Preparing for the changes that are coming is a component. The Paris accords lays a lot of the action plan out with the goal of keeping the ppm below 1.5c, but unfortunately the US has fallen into an anti-intellectual state of being and trends toward ignoring all of this.

The problem is that the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than the cost of trying to change our habits.
Click to expand...

The cost as in?
 
#3,360
#3,360
OHvol40 said:
Well, if you can prove that, I’m all ears.
Click to expand...
Well, you're right. No way the satellites, airplanes that fly into storms, the thousands if not millions of sensors could be any better than sailing ships and a few tens of thousands of people in coastal Florida in cataloging and gathering data about major storms.
 
#3,364
#3,364
OHvol40 said:
The basic science is easy. Measurable gasses in a finite container, and the effects of changing the composition of the gasses in said finite container are known and measurable. The nuance lies in what to do about it. We are completely reliant on burning fossil fuels, so curbing that dependence and finding viable alternatives is crucial. Preparing for the changes that are coming is a component. The Paris accords lays a lot of the action plan out with the goal of keeping the ppm below 1.5c, but unfortunately the US has fallen into an anti-intellectual state of being and trends toward ignoring all of this.

The problem is that the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than the cost of trying to change our habits.
Click to expand...
I don't think we're doing nothing. Have you noticed all the Teslas on the road? I do not agree with the gov't forcing us to buy Teslas or other electric cars

There's no science to support that the Paris accords would have an impact on global temperature. Why weren't China and India in on it? I wouldn't sign anything that doesn't include those countries

I understand where you're coming from but the devil is in the details. I've gotten some horrendous electric bills this Winter. There's not more money to go around
 
#3,367
#3,367
OHvol40 said:
I think it’s generalizing and non-specific to say that the “Federal Government” released the report. It was released in a collaboration between 14 agencies:
The 14 Member Agencies of USGCRP involved in NCA5:
  • Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • Department of Commerce (DOC) (includes NOAA)
  • Department of Defense (DOD)
  • Department of Energy (DOE)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
  • Department of the Interior (DOI)
  • Department of State (DOS)
  • Department of Transportation (DOT)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  • National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • Smithsonian Institution

If you want to call out every single one of them and their experts that contributed to it as “policy driven”, be my guest.

As far as a hypothetical report that would completely contradict the last 5 of their nature… I guess we’ll just cross that bridge when we get there.
Click to expand...
You just listed a bunch of Executive Branch departments within… the Federal Government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#3,368
#3,368
OHvol40 said:
Well, if you can prove that, I’m all ears.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is literally a question. its part of science getting more detailed/accurate instruments if nothing else that make us better at identifying storms than we were in the past. satelites, computers, sensors are either all new or vastly improved than anything we had before.
 
#3,370
#3,370
OHvol40 said:
Human, financial…

Investing in decarbonization and adaptation is significantly more cost-effective than managing the damage.
Click to expand...

How about mitigating the probability of damage like:

Stop building on the shoreline and in flood zones
Restore the marsh and wetlands that act as a natural buffer for storms
Remove all agriculture subsidies, price controls and single source suppliers which would enable the small farmers to compete and manage the land properly
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#3,375
#3,375
hog88 said:
How about mitigating the probability of damage like:

Stop building on the shoreline and in flood zones
Restore the marsh and wetlands that act as a natural buffer for storms
Remove all agriculture subsidies, price controls and single source suppliers which would enable the small farmers to compete and manage the land properly
Click to expand...
All great ideas.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top