What if climate change is no hoax?

we have had innumerable threads discussing the evidence for and against climate change. It is clear this dispute has been fully discussed and that that neither side will acknowledge error or defeat. Lets discuss the issue from a different perspective.

Clearly this dispute features two sides that are each adamantly convinced of their own position. And clearly those positions are mutually exclusive. So it is also clear that one side of the dispute must be wrong. So lets talk about those scenarios

Also, i think we should acknowledge that everyone can be wrong. There certainly are ample illustrations of people having absolute certainty, and never the less being wrong. So i think we cannot exclude the possibility of error. So ..... what if the so called scientific consensus is on balance correct? What if human green house gas emissions are changing the climate/environment? What if these impacts actually will negatively impact human inhabitability of our world?

Particularly i wonder “what if” added greenhouse gasses destabilize the climate so that normal self correcting feedbacks no longer operate as we are expected.

For example.... what if warming reduces ice cover, which in turn increases the absorption of solar heat? What if melting of permafrost releases a large amount of methane (which is a very powerful greenhouse gas). What if warming shifts the areas which can be productively farmed? What if there is some other collection of interactions that result in a large and unanticipated impact?

 

And what if it is all good? Plant growing bigger and faster using less water to feed the planet. More arable land available for farming. More rainfall.

 

A lot of "ifs" there, but given all that, shouldn't that mean that resources be dedicated to mitigation and dealing with the results, rather than simply trying to reduce CO2? It seems that policies like not allowing building and construction on coastal areas should be implemented.

 

Human beings evolved when the PPM for CO2 was like 6k.

If they survived that without air conditioning and technology, I doubt we have much to worry about.

 

Exactly.

High CO2 means more food, not less.

Extinction events (outside asteroid impacts) have always happened during the ice ages, not during earths much warmer, much higher CO2 periods.

 

Yes.
this should be done regardless of whether or not there is human caused climate change since it seems clear that sea levels have been, and seemingly inexorably continue to rise for what ever reason. Of course that problem would only be exacerbated if we assume that human caused climate change is not a hoax

Mike
I think that you may have inadvertently raised an overlooked point. Whether or not humans are (or even are able to) cause climate change.... it seems clear that things like sea level are changing. And the contentious debates over potential human impacts seems to lead skeptics to question even non human caused changes. So, in the case that you raise concerning sea levels, i have seen climate change skeptics debate even the obvious reality of sea level rise... apparently because acceptance of that reality might be taken as supportive of ACA arguments. And, as a consequence, it become impossible even to discuss non ACA related climate Change mitigation policies

 

It's not an overlooked point, unless you are referring to climate change activists. It seems pretty obvious that you would start, on step one, right there on dealing with sea level increases. The fact that such obvious basic steps are not even on the drawing board at these climate change conferences that activists jet into, don't give skeptics like me reason to think that the people who claim we're nearing an extinction level event either don't know what they're doing or don't really believe it themselves

Case in point, in 2005, after Katrina, virtually every left leaning activist and political group wanted funds to rebuild the 9th Ward, even though it's below sea level. If you think climate change is real and happening, then you know that the 9th Ward is doomed. However we spent billions to rebuild a piece of land that would have been better served being turned into a wetland, or at least flattened and allowed nature to take it's course.

So it's hard to take seriously climate change activists calling me a "science denier" when virtually every policy they propose seems like it's really for some other agenda and denies science.

 

I find a few issues here
What i have proposed as a a topic is “what if human caused climate change is no hoax”
And i have gone on to postulate various possible examples.
Now IF we start out with my proposed assumption...
Then it is the case that carbon being pumped into the atmosphere is going to be causing problems
And IF that is the case, then somehow or other the problem has to be addressed by targeting the increasing carbon

What you have responded with is a way of addressing the symptoms
This is more or less similar to a dr. Finding a patient with a severe infection causing a severe temperature and deciding the proper treatment would be an ice bath to lower the temperature.
While i will agree that there might be some need to reduce a very severe temperature, an ice bath would never treat the infective cause of the temperature. .... just as building sea walls would have no impact on the cause of rising sea levels. So this is why topic was not championed by warmists... building sea walls only treats symptoms, and for that matter is only a stop gap measure as long as the cause is not addressed

Mike
Lets say there is a problem (hypothetically of course)
And lets say that most people talking about this problem are idiots... like al gore or anyone talking about an extinction level event. The fact that there are lots of idiots does not change the reality of whether or not there is a problem. If there is a problem, and if there are idiots.... surely the correct response (if there is a problem) is to present correct responses to the problem rather than getting into a huff about the idiots.

Yes, i think it is a totally fair point.... although a somewhat viable alternative might be to require rebuilding be done on stilts in order to get aid. But frankly, i have this feeling every time there is flooding or storm damage and everyone cries for assistance. We need to stop building in vulnerable areas

But again, that is separate issue from whether there is a long term problem arising from carbon. And, i have to say, the fact that “skeptics” deny the problem contributes to the fact no one wants to address the problem.

I am not sure which other agenda that you refer to
BUT I REITERATE
the correction for bad science is good science

Further, i would point out the distinction between activists and scientists. For example...Generally scientists are not arguing to rebuild new orleans

Mike, given what you have posted, it might be reasonable to past some opinion like

I think carbon might be impacting the climate, and i agree the reasonable mitigation strategies should be explored... but i think that activists get so absorbed in their activism that they propose idiotic mitigation strategies like xxxxxx. I suggest that we should instead focus on yyyyyy

Lets figure out what makes sense that we can agree on

 

I do not think man is stupid. I believe were the problem genuine, the left under both Obama and Clinton would have rushed pell mell into constructing sea level rise mitigations. They would have shown action, not words.

 

There is a flurry of difficulty in separating "activists" from scientists. A recent example, was AOC declaring that the world is in 12 years. Beto O'Rourke? “The scientists are unanimous on this. We have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis...”

So is the world ending in 12 years? Or is 12 years the time limit to do anything? I don't think any scientists are saying that, but both of these yoyos are swearing that is what the scientists say. And is the media fact checking them on this? You know better than that... So given the litany of false climate change predictions, it's hard for me to take any of this seriously.

You think that carbon dioxide is the urgent issue, but the thing is, it's already there and just isn't going to be easily reversed. The effects (or as you refer to them, the symptoms), if there are any, are supposed to be much more immediate, like in 12 years? So to that end there are common sense things that can be done, that are not even on the drawing board. I've never seen such an allegedly major issue be so littered with obvious nonsense. Several Democratic candidates have already endorsed the "Green New Deal." How am I supposed to take that, or them seriously?

 

You may have difficulty identifying a scientist vs an activist
I will be happy to help
Neither person is a scientist

Yes, well lots of people say lots of things
So lets talk about what scientists and on what basis you may disagree with it

As you know the media has s largely worthless
But what does that have to do with science

Mike, you know that people say all sorts of things and the media loves a compelling story... so i agree that you cannot trust activists, nor can you rely on the media. However that does not logically lead to a scientific conclusion that “its hard to take any of this seriously”

Yes , it is there
Yes it is not easily reversed
In your mind Does that imply that nothing at all can be done?

Are you using this as proof that there is no problem?
Or what?
I can assure you that in 12 years things will be very similar to today... but somewhat worse
does that help our discussion?

Good, lets talk about those things. I am listening
In the mean time, please tell me why encouraging solar energy is not common sense, why requiring better insulated houses is not common sense, why more efficient appliances is not common sense, why higher mileage cars are not common sense, why taxing co2 emissions is not common sense

Please share your alternative wisdom

No
What you are supposed to do is provide more sensible alternatives

 

Given that carbon dioxide concentrations are ever increasing due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions the only reasonable plan of action is an immediate Net Zero emissions policy, worldwide. That will never happen and I think, as lil mikey has said, those advocating policy know this to be fact. A little conservation and reduction of CO2 emissions will not reduce or stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The other option is to prepare for climatic change, but that will be difficult given the uncertainty of those changes. Rather than government mandating citizens actions , the governments should be honest with the people and turn them loose to find their own solutions.

 

It is possible to reduce the increase

Your argument seems similar to saying that we cannot pay off the national debt.... therefore there is no point to try to reduce the deficit

Do you need to be turned loose?

Sadly the the co2 that you emit impacts the entire planet
And also, it is a problem that the co2 that we emit today will impact people who are not yet even born.
And further, what ever co2 is emitted will no equally impact all nations. Canada and russia might benefit from warmer temperatures... where as Calcutta might become uninhabitable. Some island nations will cease to exist

 

I don't think we know. How do we know anything we do will have any effect?

I've actually already done some of that in this thread: Deal with the symptoms, if any. Whether CO2 is causing 90% of warming or .9% if the Earth is warming, for any reason, than dealing with the symptoms should be job one. Apparently that seems the least sexy solution to climate activists and scientists.

 

Well for me the sensible option is to fund green technology research, work on ways to adapt to the problems this might mean in the United States abandoning flooding coastal cities and moving population to other locations as needed it wouldn't be done in a hurry just stop funding rebuilding on the coasts with Federal funds when its not prudent and see if market forces end the threat. If and when the cost of doing nothing more exceeds the cost of more action maybe in 2100 we can do more active measures than these.

 

We played this "what if" game decades ago when logging was the Boogeyman and we were about to cut down "the last trees" in America. Spotted owls played the polar bears role and loggers were the "big oil" bad guys of the day. Clinton won largely based on his anti logging rhetoric and when elected he did everything he could to kill the industry. In short the "what if it's true" gang got their way. Fast forward a couple of decades and unmanaged forest full of dead trees that couldn't be logged started burning and forest fires became catastrophic events. Now people are seeing the light and admitting the Sierra club no cut policy was not a good one.
Now we have the new Boogeyman called global warming that will end the same way if reactionary types get their way and decades from now people will look back and say well that didn't work out so well. Round and round we go.

 

@Josephwalker improper logging is just as bad if not worse than not logging.

 

What is improper logging? It is a somewhat nebulous term, I'm wondering what others see as improper.

 

The question is irrelevant given limits to growth and environmental damage. But it is also irrelevant because most want an unsustainable global economy to continue.

 

Logging was not a crisis. It was a way to scare people into voting democrat just like AGW is

 

Sell your LA and Manhattan condos - stat.

 

Deniers no longer call climate change a hoax as it has become undeniable...now it is a natural process that has always happened.

 

Proper logging is using adequate fire breaks and not harvesting timber prematurely. It is not surrendering to wildfires like is presently being done.

 

Nah... I think you confused a few things there. Deniers are those, like you, who think that climate shouldn't change. That it's inconvenient to you, so we shouldn't allow it to change. Climate has, does, and will always change though. You cannot stop that any more that you can stop the rotation of the earth or it's orbit around the sun. I understand that makes you "feel" insignificant. I understand that you "feel" like you have to do something about it. But, I will guarantee you that today we don't have the ability, and frankly, it's probably pretty stupid to spend actual time working on ways to make you empowered enough to attempt to insert your own limited intellect in a way that changes the natural process going on around you. But you will continue to wail against whatever change happens, and wail that you were ineffective in having a voice that somehow you feel you're entitled enough to demand the rest of the world adopt your standards. I think that's pretty lame actually.

To answer the original question of the thread. No. Climate change is NOT a hoax. It never was. What is a hoax though, is that folks having the discussion believe that somehow they can "stop" or "modify" or otherwise "preclude" the natural changes that are happening around us sufficient that they can exact behavioral changes, economic changes, and fundamental population distribution patterns that satisfy their egos and make them "feel" better about themselves. That's what the real conversation has always been about even covered in the opaqueness of the conversation about what changes are occurring that we will be living with as the climate changes around us. I would point out that many of the changes that "might" happen would in fact be beneficial. There would be more food for one. Something antithetical to those who demand that we radically reduce the populations under the theory that somehow the explosion of the population is something that they can arbitrarily dictate and control.

 

You can't stand on the flat ground in the same climate twice.