Severe weather alert!!!!

Note that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a monopoly on the science of AGW. And there are Republicans that acknowledge the science of AGW.

I'd be willing to bet that if a Republican president were to raise awareness of AGW there would be enough party-line members to rally around the cause to get public policy enacted. Why? Because many ideological minded people base their worldview off of their party's talking points. They just want to be told what to support and what not to support. And I in no way mean for that to be taken as disparaging Republicans only because I equally indict Democrats of the same cognitive bias.

 

As the word "Democrat" never appeared in my post, you're clearly lying. No way out of that. I'm very happy to recommend any politician who is a climate realist. That's why I very specifically did not mention any political parties.

If you want anyone to keep talking to you, you'll need to admit that you lied, apologize for lying, and then pledge to stop lying. If you won't, it means that you don't regret lying at all, and that you'll keep lying. And if you're just going to lie in response to everything, there's no reason for anyone to speak with you.

 

Unless you live in a cave or are just trying to obfuscate you'll know the republican platform dismisses AGW while the democrats endorse it. I'll assume you don't live in a cave but in a house with AC and central heating and you drive a car so obfuscation it is.

 

if you want to live in a cave and hug trees for Mother Gaia, feel free to do so. Just don't expect us to join you. We like indoor plumbing and electricity. That's why we're working to keep the lights on. In contrast, you and your anti-technology cult would leave humanity shivering in the dark after the fossil fuel runs out.

And individuals are free to pay no attention to those platforms. You're the only person here making every single thing entirely about party ID. You do that because you're a shameless and irredeemable party apparatchik, while the rest of us are politically independent.

 

Ya know what I think. I think deep down you know that the evidence for AGW is compelling and that humans have a moral responsibility to keep the planet in a state that was no worse than before. But, because your worldview is based more on ideology rather than science you simply can't bend your position because it'll be seen as you losing while your competition wins.

 

Yet it's the cult that brings up who you vote for as being an important factor in this debate. "Save the planet, vote Democrat" Have your bumper sticker yet? It's free ya know.

https://action.dccc.org/page/s/planet-sticker

 

What policies? You keep dancing around this. What policies?

 

Golly, this sounded almost right... Except that when you really look at the folks who are driving the environmental purity movement, the goal does actually seem to be a zero impact human existence. Which is why the dissonance then of suggesting that folks, like you, who profess their appreciation and desire to continue to use energy and indoor plumbing is so amusing.

Every time we get back to this position. Folks in the AGW congregation profess their undying devotion towards "saving us all", and in the next breath, demand that their lives not actually change. It is quite the dichotomy. Affluence, mobility for the AGW world, just not anyone else. Energy scarcity created by legislative fiat, consumption grinding regulations designed to further scarcity. All in the name of "what's best for us", except that it isn't for "us", you believe you can force it on "them", yourselves not included.

And that truly is the way it works.

 

Oh do tell, how do you propose to remain static? This "leave the world no worse than you found it" meme. It's fascinating. So, do tell, how would you stop the world changing around you. And next, cause it seems to make a number of conflicts very front of the line, for those folks who live in say crappy climates, are you suggesting that the world not change even if it might benefit them? That seems remarkably pejorative. But then, isn't that really what we can expect from the AGW faithful? We got ours...but.... screw the rest of you heathens? That message seems to resonate with you folks...

 

As a believer in human induced recent changes in atmospheric composition increasing the rapidity and severity of our planet becoming warmer, I know full well we cannot possibly "Leave a better place" for the next generation as we have already eliminated that possibility. I have in fact grown to understand that we will leave them with a very difficult and uncomfortable reality that will have no solution and eventually get far worse for the generation they create. Oh well....I will be dead long before it really gets bad

I would apologize but, I didn't do it.

 

For the sake of argument let's say you are right and man is warming the planet. Just out of curiosity how is warmer "a very difficult and uncomfortable reality"?

 

It will come in many forms from drought and increased flooding to famine and larger storms, depending on location and resources. Our climate is extremely complex with many variables and interactions so answering that question is at best a guess. On the East coast of the U.S it has been higher temperatures, larger storms and more flooding but on the west it is larger and more damaging fires, drought and changes in snowpack.....everyone will have a different result.

 

Any policy. The point I was making isn't dependent on calling out any specific policy. My point is that if a president one day declared that climate change is something to be concerned with he would like get a enough people on board with the idea that something would get done.

 

Why does it have to be a Republican vs Democrat thing though?

Also, I'd never get a bumper sticker encouraging people to vote Democrat.

 

In the context of climate change I would advocate for public policies that limit the amount of GHGs we are pumping into the atmosphere while also balancing the goals of economic growth.

 

The evidence shows that global warming will lead to suppressed GDP and a decrease in Earth's carrying capacity for humans.

 

History shows otherwise. Man has evolved as climate has changed and mostly become warmer but fluctuation is the key word here. Interesting article and hypothesis actually.
"Neanderthal populations (Homo neanderthalensis) in Europe endured many environmental changes, including large shifts in climate between glacial and interglacial conditions, while living in a habitat that was colder overall than settings where most other hominin species lived. Some of the environmental shifts they endured involved rapid swings between cold and warm climate.
"The Neanderthals were able to adjust their behavior to fit the circumstances. During cold, glacial periods, they focused on hunting reindeer, which are cold-adapted animals. During warmer, interglacial periods, they hunted red deer. During extreme cold periods, they shifted their range southwards toward warmer environments."

Adaptation to Change
There are many ideas about the role of the environment in human evolution. Some views assume that certain adaptations, such as upright walking or tool-making, were associated with drier habitat and the spread of grasslands, an idea often known as the savanna hypothesis. According to this long-held view, many important human adaptations arose in the African savanna or were influenced by the environmental pressure of an expanding dry grassland.

If key human adaptations evolved in response to selection pressure by a specific environment, we would expect those adaptations to be especially suited to that habitat. Hominin fossils would be found in those environments and not present in diverse types of habitat.

The Variability Selection Hypothesis
A different hypothesis is that the key events in human evolution were shaped not by any single type of habitat (e.g., grassland) or environmental trend (e.g., drying) but rather by environmental instability. This idea, developed by Dr. Rick Potts of the Human Origins Program, is called variability selection. This hypothesis calls attention to the variability observed in all environmental records and to the fact that the genus Homo was not limited to a single type of environment. Over the course of human evolution, human ancestors increased their ability to cope with changing habitats rather than specializing on a single type of environment.

Hominins Persisted Through Environmental Change
Environmental instability may have been a factor not only in shaping adaptations but also in contributing to the extinction of some lineages. Environmental variability associated with the extinction of large mammal species has been proposed for the southern Kenya region. Sediments, stone artifacts, and animal faunal at the site of Olorgesailie span most of the past 1.2 million years. Numerous environmental shifts are recorded in the Olorgesailie deposits. The ancient lake level and its chemistry, for example, changed frequently, and sometimes the lake dried up, leaving small wetlands and streams as the main source of water in the basin. Volcanic eruptions also blanketed the landscape in ash, killing off grass and reshaping the properties of the ecosystem.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

 

Cheer up, man is resilient.

Conculsions
Overall, the evidence shows that hominins were able to adapt to changing environments to different degrees. The genus Homo, to which our species belongs, had the capacity to adjust to a variety of environmental conditions, and Homo sapiens is especially able to cope with a broad range of climatic conditions, hot and cold environments, arid and moist ones, and with all kinds of varying vegetation. We use resources from a vast variety of plants and animals and use many specialized tools. We have many social contacts and means of exchanging resources and information to help us survive in a constantly changing world."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

 

It is right. The denier goal is to leave most of humanity shivering in the dark after the fossil fuel runs out. Your Stalinist cult leaders get a tingle thinking about how they can use energy scarcity to force obedience from the masses. Their plan is to be living the high life in gated communities, while everyone else starves. Paradise, at least for right-wing-extremist cult leaders.

In contrast, we rational and moral people seek energy abundance for everyone. We reject the aims of your authoritarian death cult.

 

I remember thinking like that when I was about 16 years old.

 

I don't understand this aversion to non-fossil based energy sources. And forget about climate change for now. Fossil based energy sources are finite and they WILL run out. You have no choice but to adopt a new paradigm...eventually anyway. So instead of thumping your chest about how much GHGs and aerosol pollution we spew into the atmosphere by burning it we should be encouraging the development of alternative energy sources. I want the United States to be leaders in this industry instead of followers because I want us to get rich off of it; not someone else. The world is going to move on with or without us. And if we keep going down the path we're currently on then we're going to get left in the dust and we'll be the ones ponying up for these new technologies one day. Is this what you want?

 

I want R&D into new energy. I don't want being forced to abandon fossil fuel before new technology is ripe in the name of a non existent problem known as global warming. I don't want the cart put ahead of the horse.

 

Ok you don’t understand, let us get right down to it.

First, you believe that climate change is of extreme and may cause mass extinction which will affect you??? I haven’t read much of what you post so asking that would be pertinent as I am about to assume much.

So Fossil fuels are the stable of energy in the world today, due to the fact it is cheapest and fastest. This will change, but while many in this area wish to ignore other current forms such as Nuclear we are left with an ideal to fill land mass with solar panels and wind turbines which to date has been unable to meet base load energy concerns.

So would you give up your power and gas consumption in the ideal of giving up fossil fuels??? Like the way your prepared to force up the price of energy produced by cheaper methods to lock the world into methods that are inefficient to the needs of the people in the world and relegating others you don’t see to poor and even death.

The question that has to be answered while filling the planet’s land mass with solar panels and wind farms, where do you plan on growing the worlds food??? Perhaps, what are you going to feed the people on???


Now we can all look to putting these power sources in the desert because nothing grows there yet that would also prove to be an oversight as the greatly increased cost and loss in transmission increase the overall base price outside the purview of the working poor and the middles class. Maybe that would affect you.

The fact remains, your entire post is why don’t others accept this… the question is why don’t you do it now???

 

No. I do not believe that. What I do believe is that climate change will force humanity to either mitigate it or adapt to it. Research shows that adapting to it is more expense than mitigating it both in terms of financial metrics like GDP, but also in terms of things like Earth's carrying capacity for humans. The piper gets paid either way. It's up to policy makers to decide which way we want to pay up.

I don't want to ignore nuclear power. It's a viable options and it's competively priced. Solar and wind can be made more effective by energy storage technologies such as pumped-storage which converts solar and wind into gravitational potential energy that can then be used on demand.

Absolutely...if the end result was cheaper. I don't want to force up the price of energy. I want to make it cheaper. I believe this can happen simultaneous with reducing carbon emissions.

You should be asking yourself that. Agricultural productivity is going to decline because of global warming. Each degree of warming from here on out will work to reduce the carrying capacity for humans. Anyway, why not dual-purpose our land? Put solar panels on rooftops and colocate wind farms with agricultural.

I do. I have solar panels; not because they're cool to have, but because there's an ROI. I have a high efficiency HVAC; not because it's cool to have, but because there's an ROI. I have an PHEV; not because it's cool to have, but because there's an ROI. And ya know the irony? I didn't do any of this to reduce my carbon footprint. I did it because it puts me in a better financial position long term. Reducing my carbon footprint is an added bonus I suppose, but that wasn't my motivation.

 

Ok I assumed you were a religious nut (agw religion) sorry I was wrong. fair enough...

BUT many talk of mitigation, as you do here, as some sort of answer but the truth is that mitigation is a feel good way of continuing to pollute at the pleasure of the wealthy who can afford to pay for such while demanding the subservience of lower class to regulated to obscurity.

Sorry, was not suggesting you did just pointing out the Green’s philosophy and the hypocrisy of the ideal.


As for your idea of pumped storage, since the solar panel needs far greater work to become efficient, I think 19% or even 30% is so inefficient that just to run your pumped storage will need greater energy than return. BUT that is just my opinion.

It all sounds very admiral of you, but the point is that the Paris agreement and ALL the policy around the world are already forcing the point of choosing who can pay for what in this area to do just that. So stating that you would do such yourself just as long as your ideal of outcome is met.


Now I don’t know if you support these policies or not, but you did post that why don’t we just do it. I ask why don’t you do it now.

Well, I don’t have to. I am not making any demands on world governments or in these comments that the world should do this nor that. In fact I am pointing out the issues that others ignore to make themselves feel good while not actually doing anything.

Tesla just put a bank of batteries in Adelaide South Australia to mitigate lose in power that would supposedly support loss of power of the renewables and imported Coal generated power. AS it turns out this entire bank $1billion cost will run 1 business for 8minutes.

In other words if you do the maths of your proposal you just cannot meet your expectations.

That is good; YOU have solar panels to reduce the energy costs to you. How long will it take to pay for itself??? Do you know how much personal solar provides for the energy consumption of your area and just how much of the energy you produce do you actually use??? We could bandy about with the costs here but I only ask to ascertain if you actually do understand the cost efficiency and reality of just how feasible your example actually is.

It does actually interest me as this detracts from my original point, are you prepared to do what is being demanded of others all in the name of climate change.