Climate Alarmism

[_Some Schmo]

Thanks a lot for quoting that, canpakes. Now I can't read her lips without it seeming like she's saying:

“F” that, the point is made.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, the ruling from the bench is objection overruled, so let's do this.

I found an updated version of Sub's first graph on the NOAA website. It's a little easier to see what it shows because it has swapped out the dots for arrows that show the direction of the sea level change.



So, Sub, what is it about this graph that supports your claim that:

The worst case based upon the best data is that most climate science is alarmist and exaggerated with regards to impact, influence, and cause....most modern climate science is Policy Based Evidence Making:

[_Gunnar]

Why the IPCC Report is so Scary

This report points out that regardless of what is true or not true about climate change, everyone on earth will benefit from following IPCC's recommendations, while the only the only groups that really benefit from promoting the belief that climate change is a hoax are fossil fuel advocates and special interest groups and politicians that are funded and supported by donations from fossil fuel interests.

So why are so many people so adamantly opposed to transitioning to renewable or carbon neutral and carbon negative sources of energy, when the potential economic and environmental benefits, entrepreneurial opportunities, money saving potential and valuable job creation are rapidly becoming more and more apparent? It just doesn't make sense, unless your main source of income is directly related to the production and sale of fossil fuels, and feel secure in the knowledge that you will already be dead before the worst potential consequences of climate change manifest themselves.

[_Water Dog]

white people in developed countries who already own everything everyone on earth will benefit from everyone else following IPCC's recommendations

Fixed it for you.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/886051 ... ik.Twitter

[_subgenius]

...
So why are so many people so adamantly opposed to transitioning to renewable or carbon neutral and carbon negative sources of energy, when the potential ....

The quick answer is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"... but also consider that these sources you want to transition towards aren't yet affordable, accessible, or even practical. For example the bang for your buck from coal, or the torque from a diesel engine, etc. Heck even a widespread and rapid implementation of electric cars isn't feasible because of charging stations and production facilities and after-market parts suppliers, etc.

Now I am not saying that this is an "either or" decision/action, but most people will behave like the market always behaves, and currently these alternate resources are simply being marketed poorly. Previously I have stated that I believe Obama's most successful act was banning incandescent bulbs, and while that sort of policy is not reasonable for gas engines, it does show that "transitions" are occurring.

[_EAllusion]

The quick answer is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"... but also consider that these sources you want to transition towards aren't yet affordable, accessible, or even practical.

That's no longer true as far as electricity generation is concerned. You're stuck in a decade ago. If you removed the various ways in which fossil fuels are subsidized by the government, renewables are getting very close to parity. (Some sources will argue that has already happened, but I'm more inclined towards the skeptical analyses that say close, but not quite yet.) The tricky part is dismantling their entrenched interests so market forces can reflect this fact better.

The charging station issue for electric cars you bring up strikes me as a non-problem as the economy can turn that over as demand ramps up in a matter of years.

[_EAllusion]

I should add that the United States has never had a trillion dollar+ war in part motivated to protect access to global wind supplies. It's really difficult to add that kind of externality into the price of a gallon of gas at the pump.

[_subgenius]

I should add that the United States has never had a trillion dollar+ war in part motivated to protect access to global wind supplies. It's really difficult to add that kind of externality into the price of a gallon of gas at the pump.

its really hard to fuel our daily national work commute by wind.

[_subgenius]

The quick answer is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"... but also consider that these sources you want to transition towards aren't yet affordable, accessible, or even practical.

That's no longer true as far as electricity generation is concerned.

No, its still true...well, at least it is still true according to facts.

You're stuck in a decade ago.

Maybe, but you are stuck in about 4 or 5 decades ago.

If you removed the various ways in which fossil fuels are subsidized by the government, renewables are getting very close to parity.

You have a poor understanding of energy creation, energy density, or efficiency. Try to understand a simple, small scale example first....like trains...look at the comparisons between diesel trains and electric trains...but both passenger and freight....and then get back to us....(and note the wide spectrum in this comparison, like noise, idle times, maintenance, etc.)

(Some sources will argue that has already happened, but I'm more inclined towards the skeptical analyses that say close, but not quite yet.) The tricky part is dismantling their entrenched interests so market forces can reflect this fact better.

Yeah, that's not it. What is tricky is that a passenger jet running on wind electricity isn't even close to "parity".

The charging station issue for electric cars you bring up strikes me as a non-problem as the economy can turn that over as demand ramps up in a matter of years.

Yeah, that was the obvious and stated point Sherlock - as in transitions take significant time. Your talent for regurgitation just because you like to read your own typing is impressive.

[_Chap]

You have a poor understanding of energy creation

Why, so do I!

I'd love it if you would explain how energy can be created.

I was under the impression that it more or less just gets changed from one form to another (OK, allowing for mass-energy equivalence with the usual conversion factor when that matters).