Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

You're so right. Of course it's not undeniable. How silly of me.

3% of climate scientists disagree on global warming.

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

 

Will is a long ways away.

The only way to make them supply 100% all the time would be to have many times more on line than what is normally required. It is much more efficient to have a non-renewable power on standby.

 

I recently drove through S Texas and witnessed myself the HUNDREDS of idle wind turbines over the course of 3 days. No amount of battery power would make a home owner energy independent at that point. Where would their energy come from? You assert this like you have actual answers. But you don't. FYI, do you know how HOT local solar farms get? Would it bother you that it might be 10-15 F warmer around one? Do you know what heat islands are? I doubt it. But who cares.... Green....

 

Show me a survey where they actually asked climate scientists. They have manipulated data to get that number based on scientific papers submitted. No statistician worth his salt would do that. They would simply ask.

Man affects the weather and the climate. No person in his right mind could deny that. Man's primary effect is warming because there is simply very few ways the influence could be cooling. That takes us to the three important issues on which there is far from universal agreement.

1. How much warning is due to man?

2. How much can man change it?

3. How accurately can we forecast it?

 

LOL.. You don't even know what your statistic represented, do you? All you know is the talking point... But sure, you're authoritative.

 

It's a worldwide conspiracy against Trump. A Democrat hoax. And a Pentagon hoax. Europe. Asia. Everybody's in on the hoax, and Trump is here to save us.

 

The questions then begs: Where will the energy come from when the fossil fuels have dried up? I guess you don't care about that?

Second, it is just not true that no amount of battery power is enough to make home owners energy independent. One can easily put 15 kW of solar panels on the roof, and whole house battery storage is constantly improving. Of course, one may have to turn the AC over night from 65 to 75 degrees. Oh the horror, how will civilization ever survive.

 

Not being authoritative. Responding in kind, except my response was real

 

Provide this survey where 97% of climate scientists actually said they believed in AGW beyond what I posted above.

 

You won't get anywhere suggesting human influence is all of it. The cyclic nature of climate is most of it, if not all of it.

 

Here's the problem with worst case scenarios: If bears get in my house they could possibly kill my entire family, I suggest we murder all the bears. I'll let you decide if that is a good idea or not. And I would say may bear scenario is way more likely than man made climate change destroying the earth unless we do exactly what the democrats suggest.

There is nothing wrong with progressing towards new technology, but what the left is proposing would completely collapse the world's economy. That is not a "possibility" but an unfortunate fact. Renewable energy is nowhere near ready to pick up the tab. And yes, millions would starve if you stop every plane, cargo ship, Semi truck, and piece of farm equipment. The politicians and the media know this, but they are more interested in generating fear and panic for our votes than anything that might actually benefit the people.

Your source says 97% agree that climate is changing and we are an influence - and I agree with them. How many experts agree with the Green New Deal? Big difference, and with that kind of far left politicization there really isn't much middle ground. Which of course is the goal, God forbid we work together to make informed decision concerning actual problems.

 

T. Boone Pickens had some good ideas, I thought.

The first thing Republicans have to do is acknowledge the science. Then the working together can begin. It doesn't have to be the exact way the Democrats want it.

 

First the scientists have to acknowledge the science. In spite of what they try to make you believe, they have not. There is still considerable controversy in the scientific community.

The 97% consensus is based on scientific papers submitted. Not on an actual survey of scientists. That in itself is bad science. It would be similar to using newspaper editorials as a poll on the election. Assume that 80% of the editorials are pro-Biden vs pro-Trump, then 80% of the population will vote for Biden. Valid statistics simply are not done that way.

 

One, climate is always changing. It will do so as long as we have an atmosphere and a son whose energy out put varies from year to year and day to day as the Earth's elliptical orbit carries now further from and then closer to the sun.
Two we will not create enough extraneous CO2 over the next 1000 years no matter what we do to significantly affect atmospheric chemistry. We haven't yet nor will we.
3. There is a far better chance of us getting knocked off the planet by some giant space rock, or asphyxiated by one of the dozens of more super volcanoes on the planet than there is that we will generate enough CO2 to exterminate ourselves.

 

Your source for this is what?

 

two things: 1. False comparison, bears will not cause mankind to become extinct, and you could move if that were true but mankind cannot move to another planet.
2. Its' a strawman argument.

 

Ah you live in California, so that clarifies the discussion a bit.

Your state has committed itself to carbon free energy and to that end is leaning on solar and wind (plus hypocritical cheating on your commitment by buying electricity out of state).

So... if it can be done, you guys will be the first and will show the country the way. Right now I'm not really buying it. Your third world brown outs are not really selling me on the idea that you guys know what you're doing. So if you figure it out, you can make your case, but right now your state looks like the Laurel and Hardy of energy production.

 

T Boone Pickens lost his ass on his good ideas. His wind farm idea went broke.

 

Math and reality. Now tell me exactly how you propose limiting a gas that one volcano in the wrong place will generate more if in a couple weeks than mankind has in its entire history.

 

It's not Co2 output,per se, is the problem, it's the environment's natural ability to absorb it at a rate equal to what is being produced.

The fix must be on par with the gravity of the problem.

If the vast majority of scientists are screaming 'this is a five alarm fire' sized problem, then we proceed as if it were a five alarm fire sized problem.

Being 'balanced' is really not desirable, and, in fact, has a wishy washy feel to it.

So, precisely what, are most scientists telling us? That is the question you must ask and seek the answer to.

If half the scientists say 'no problem', and the other half say 'major problem, i.e., existential threat' the option is NOT the middle ground, the option is as follows:


First, summarizing the two basic camps:

Climate change denier camp: Worse case potential outcome: Extinction of mankind. Best case potential outcome: Nothing happens, normal survival of mankind and species outside of normal extinction patterns for non human life. Jobs and incomes and bank accounts not affected.

Climate change believer camp: Worst case potential outcome: Jobs lost and incomes diminished / bank accounts shrunk due to environmental policies preparing for worst case scenario in order to prevent it (or so the logic goes, though I doubt it, but let's, for argument sakes, say it's true). Best case potential outcome: Extinction of mankind thwarted.

in my opinion we must ignore middle ground theoretics because we are operating from worst case possible outcomes, which we must BECAUSE such outcomes are possible, which is the whole point of the OP.

So, since we do not know who is right, would could err on either, but if we do err on either camp, which camp would we rather err with, IF err we must?

Seems to me that the wiser path is the climate change believer camp for the reason that downside is only money spent we don't need to spend (if we are wrong) and upside benefit is saving mankind. (if we are right).

Now, to all the right wingers and climate skeptics out there:

we do not know, at this juncture, which camp is right or wrong, THAT IS NOT THE POINT AND THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING IT BECAUSE I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT!!!!

Capiche?

 

Your logic is good. But one should not be required to take the worst case scenario if that would cost a world-wide unfathomable fortune if it is unlikely.

 

They are had global warming in California while at the same time they had global cooling in Colorado when the temperatures dropped dropped from the 90s down to the the 30s overnight with snow..

 

Are you asking if I know with 100% certainty that the camps and their scientists don't have 100% certainty?????

 

AOC and many Democrats and leftists are most clearly advocating no fossil fuels of any kind as a solution.

 

Your logic is very good. However, I think FAW's point was that climate protagonists have similar characteristics of religious protagonists which are often considerably less than rational, not that religion bias causes climatology.