Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

At its heart, climate change policy seeks to do one thing: Reduce the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. And the method is mostly to move energy production from petroleum to other means, such as hydro, wind, solar, and other renewable forms.  
 

Al Gore made a very salient point about this when running for office: Nations around the world want alternative energy technology. More independent energy production helps any economy, not just America’s. 
 

The US is investing hundreds of billions in alternate energy technology. This technology is the future of global energy production.  Why should any American or any politician want to stop America from being the leader in this field? Why give it to China or Europe? 
 

There is no doubt that solar, wind and battery tech are the future of energy. Wind powers half of all electricity in Denmark and nearly ten percent of all electricity in the US… and ten percent of America’s electricity is a LOT of electricity.  
 

Moving America to alternative, renewable energy is the best thing America can do in order to remain competitive and to protect our national defense. As we’ve seen, reliance upon a resource dominated by Russia and Mideastern countries is not in our best defensive interests.
 

While petroleum will continue to meet significant parts of our energy needs for many decades to come, we need to stop politicizing the move to new technology. All of warfare in history has always been won by the nation with the better technology and the better production capability. America must seize on the opportunity to be an alternative energy leader, if we are to remain a world leader. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree that the climate is changing.

What I have yet to agree with is the cause. Yes, I am sure man is partially to blame but, historically, there has been severe climate changes in the life of the earth and is this just another cycle (exasperated by mans involvement)? The earth has had at least 6 ice ages and to melt that ice, there had to be dramatic climate change. Begs the question, how did the earth get so cold as to get 1/2 covered in hundreds of feet of ice?

I am also upset with many of the climate change proponents that travel the world to prophecize their message.

"Al Gore has attained a near-mythical status for his frenzied efforts to propagandize global warming. At the same time, Gore has done little to prove his commitment to the cause in his own life. While Gore encourages people throughout the world to reduce their carbon footprint and make drastic changes to cut energy consumption, Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year"

 

Al Gore is not alone. Most of these climate change prophets have gotten very wealthy as a consequence of their campaigning.

Change to our lifestyle will come but demeaning people living in relativity affluent societies (primarily the western world) and disregarding the main pollution causing societies is hypocritical d makes many disregard the message..

Edited by ExFlyer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

1. What I have yet to agree with is the cause. Yes, I am sure man is partially to blame but, historically, there has been severe climate changes in the life of the earth and is this just another cycle (exasperated by mans involvement)? The earth has had at least 6 ice ages and to melt that ice, there had to be dramatic climate change. Begs the question, how did the earth get so cold as to get 1/2 covered in hundreds of feet of ice?

2. I am also upset with many of the climate change proponents that travel the world to prophecize their message.

3. Al Gore is not alone. Most of these climate change prophets have gotten very wealthy as a consequence of their campaigning.

 

1. These changes are considered to be pretty much understood.  Volcanic activity and such explains it.  The causes of current climate change are as certain as you can get in climate science.  
2. 3. Fair - but that's politics.  Politicians also show up at the scene of a disaster and start passing out paper towels etc.  It's really a side issue.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Any conversation by the left on climate change ignores the elephant in the room.  Sadly, so does post one of this thread, which sounds more like propaganda than anything else.

Hey stupid, it doesn’t matter whether the climate is changing or not.  Alternative energy is the future, and America is going to fall behind the technology of other nations if we don’t invest now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. These changes are considered to be pretty much understood.  Volcanic activity and such explains it.  The causes of current climate change are as certain as you can get in climate science.  
2. 3. Fair - but that's politics.  Politicians also show up at the scene of a disaster and start passing out paper towels etc.  It's really a side issue.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  

It does not matter whether climate change is happening, moving to alternative energy is happening. Do you think America will be better off if the leaders in alternative energy are China and Japan? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I fully agree that the climate is changing.

What I have yet to agree with is the cause. Yes, I am sure man is partially to blame but, historically, there has been severe climate changes in the life of the earth and is this just another cycle (exasperated by mans involvement)? The earth has had at least 6 ice ages and to melt that ice, there had to be dramatic climate change. Begs the question, how did the earth get so cold as to get 1/2 covered in hundreds of feet of ice?

I am also upset with many of the climate change proponents that travel the world to prophecize their message.

"Al Gore has attained a near-mythical status for his frenzied efforts to propagandize global warming. At the same time, Gore has done little to prove his commitment to the cause in his own life. While Gore encourages people throughout the world to reduce their carbon footprint and make drastic changes to cut energy consumption, Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year"

 

Al Gore is not alone. Most of these climate change prophets have gotten very wealthy as a consequence of their campaigning.

Change to our lifestyle will come but demeaning people living in relativity affluent societies (primarily the western world) and disregarding the main pollution causing societies is hypocritical d makes many disregard the message..

Al Gore got wealthy because after he lost to Bush, he joined the Board of Directors of a then-failing computer company called Apple.  They paid him in stock, and his shares reached a value of over $300 million. 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

While I agree with this, I don't see any cites or a link to current event.  As such, I'll consider it an editorial that stands on its own.

Precisely so. 
Petroleum is a dinosaur. We won’t be using it in fifty years. So is America going to be dependent on China for energy or will other nations become dependent upon America? That’s the only question. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It does not matter whether climate change is happening, moving to alternative energy is happening. Do you think America will be better off if the leaders in alternative energy are China and Japan? 

I think the 'elephant in the room' mentioned above is on the practical side - ie. risk mitigation.  I don't post much on that and I don't think I have here either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. These changes are considered to be pretty much understood.  Volcanic activity and such explains it.  The causes of current climate change are as certain as you can get in climate science.  
2. 3. Fair - but that's politics.  Politicians also show up at the scene of a disaster and start passing out paper towels etc.  It's really a side issue.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  

I will say again, I am fully aware and conscious that our climate is and has changed.

I will also say that there have also been many volcanic eruptions in the past 20+ years.

My point is that the climate change evangelists have become a business and politician in the western world have been baptized by them enough for their message to become de riguer and a mantra and  politically correct now.

The Western societies are doing a lot, it is costing us a lot and yet, the real problem nations are getting worse and doing nothing.

Worse of all it the hypocritical approach as we, in the Western world, are using the poorer nations as our excuse and sending work, garbage and more for them to do so pollute even more and we can sit on our white horse wearing our white armour and absolving ourselves of any blame.

The evangelists need to direct their wrath on the right place and until they do, I have no respect for them, their lifestyle or their message. Show me a poor climate evangelist. Even that little girl is now a multi millionaire. This is not political, this is a sham the way things are now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Precisely so. 
Petroleum is a dinosaur. We won’t be using it in fifty years. So is America going to be dependent on China for energy or will other nations become dependent upon America? That’s the only question. 

I see what you did there. 

And yes even if one were to completely ignore the very real crisis of climate change, winning the alternative energy race is as vital as a space race or an arms race to the future economic and military security of the country. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I will say again, I am fully aware and conscious that our climate is and has changed.

I will also say that there have also been many volcanic eruptions in the past 20+ years.

My point is that the climate change evangelists have become a business and politician in the western world have been baptized by them enough for their message to become de riguer and a mantra and  politically correct now.

The Western societies are doing a lot, it is costing us a lot and yet, the real problem nations are getting worse and doing nothing.

Worse of all it the hypocritical approach as we, in the Western world, are using the poorer nations as our excuse and sending work, garbage and more for them to do so pollute even more and we can sit on our white horse wearing our white armour and absolving ourselves of any blame.

The evangelists need to direct their wrath on the right place and until they do, I have no respect for them, their lifestyle or their message. Show me a poor climate evangelist. Even that little girl is now a multi millionaire. This is not political, this is a sham the way things are now.

It is the nature of capitalism to profit from doing good things. That, by itself, should never be considered to discredit the fundamental science which explains what is happening. If you do, you are anti-capitalist and anti-science.

There have NOT been volcanic eruptions in the last 20 years comparable to those in ancient times which changed the climate. Those were MEGA-VOLCANOES, like Yellowstone and the Russian Steppes 450M years ago. Those eruptions clearly proved the POSSIBLE impact of CO2 and OTHER emissions on the climate.

In 1991, there was a significant eruption at Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines which caused a small TEMPORARY blip on atmospheric CO2. Virtually no long term impact on climate comparable to the GIGA-TONS of fossil fuel burning CO2 pollution. 

The West has profited off carbon pollution for over 100 years and grown rich. We CAUSED the problem, and it is nonsensical to blame POOR nations for trying to get their piece of the pie.

We NEED to LEAD the way with new tech, and share it with the poor nations so they are not left behind nor forced to follow the same path we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Hey stupid, it doesn’t matter whether the climate is changing or not.  Alternative energy is the future, and America is going to fall behind the technology of other nations if we don’t invest now.  

And you don’t even know the elephant in the room, so typical of the brainwashed left wing extremists.  Wait, and you live in California?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I fully agree that the climate is changing.

What I have yet to agree with is the cause.

No offense, but are you qualified in some way that makes your hesitation seem reasonable? Once there was a legitimate question about human impact on planetary warming, but that was decades ago. The notion of climate change has some pretty severe economic implications, so of course it's become entangled with politics, but the core question is a scientific question and in the scientific community that question has been answered. We're talking about near unanimity among scientists, surveys at 97-100%. At this point, not a single scientific body dissents from the core fact of mankind is driving climate change. The last holdout was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which stopped dissenting in 2007.

So what's your hesitation? If you're a heterodox climate with a pet theory, sure maybe you have some cause to question. But as a layperson, it just seems kind of crazy. It's like if you went to the cardiologist and after she ran your labs she said, "Your cholesterol is way too high, your arteries are clogging and you're headed for a heart attack unless you lay off the fried foods." Maybe if you really love fried foods you go for a second opinion? But if you go to 100 cardiologists and only 99 of them tell you the same thing are you really going to be unconvinced and bet your future that they're all wrong?

That's basically where we are today. People who aren't "convinced" today are simply being willfully ignorant. Climate deniers aren't driven by reason or some incisive critical thinking. There just isn't any logical platform to support it. They are instead tied up in politics and culture wars and everything else that orbits around is today a generational crisis. If we keep failing to confront reality and to take some collective action it will become an existential crisis.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It is the nature of capitalism to profit from doing good things. That, by itself, should never be considered to discredit the fundamental science which explains what is happening. If you do, you are anti-capitalist and anti-science.

There have NOT been volcanic eruptions in the last 20 years comparable to those in ancient times which changed the climate. Those were MEGA-VOLCANOES, like Yellowstone and the Russian Steppes 450M years ago. Those eruptions clearly proved the POSSIBLE impact of CO2 and OTHER emissions on the climate.

In 1991, there was a significant eruption at Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines which caused a small TEMPORARY blip on atmospheric CO2. Virtually no long term impact on climate comparable to the GIGA-TONS of fossil fuel burning CO2 pollution. 

The West has profited off carbon pollution for over 100 years and grown rich. We CAUSED the problem, and it is nonsensical to blame POOR nations for trying to get their piece of the pie.

We NEED to LEAD the way with new tech, and share it with the poor nations so they are not left behind nor forced to follow the same path we did.

Whether they were as bad as "ancient" times is not known. There have been many in the past 20 years but climate change issues is older than that

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyear

 

The "poor" nations cannot become better because if they do, we would not use them as dumping grounds and our life would become too expensive. That is why "poor" nations thrive, we need them to make our life richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sharkman said:

And you don’t even know the elephant in the room, so typical of the brainwashed left wing extremists.  Wait, and you live in California?!

Where I live is none of your business, but Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both lived in California, so I don’t see any correlation between living in California and political philosophy.  California has far more Trump voters than Wyoming and Montana.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Whether they were as bad as "ancient" times is not known. There have been many in the past 20 years but climate change issues is older than that

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyear

There have been NO MEGA-VOLCANO eruptions in the last 20 years. Believe me, if there was, EVERYONE would know.

The last MEGA eruption in Yellowstone wiped out most of the animal life in North America.

35 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The "poor" nations cannot become better because if they do, we would not use them as dumping grounds and our life would become too expensive. That is why "poor" nations thrive, we need them to make our life richer.

That is NOT the ONLY path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

At its heart, climate change policy seeks to do one thing: Reduce the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. And the method is mostly to move energy production from petroleum to other means, such as hydro, wind, solar, and other renewable forms.  
 

Al Gore made a very salient point about this when running for office: Nations around the world want alternative energy technology. More independent energy production helps any economy, not just America’s. 
 

The US is investing hundreds of billions in alternate energy technology. This technology is the future of global energy production.  Why should any American or any politician want to stop America from being the leader in this field? Why give it to China or Europe? 
 

There is no doubt that solar, wind and battery tech are the future of energy. Wind powers half of all electricity in Denmark and nearly ten percent of all electricity in the US… and ten percent of America’s electricity is a LOT of electricity.  
 

Moving America to alternative, renewable energy is the best thing America can do in order to remain competitive and to protect our national defense. As we’ve seen, reliance upon a resource dominated by Russia and Mideastern countries is not in our best defensive interests.
 

While petroleum will continue to meet significant parts of our energy needs for many decades to come, we need to stop politicizing the move to new technology. All of warfare in history has always been won by the nation with the better technology and the better production capability. America must seize on the opportunity to be an alternative energy leader, if we are to remain a world leader. 

Let's go through that paragraph by paragraph. There's so much BS that's the only way to do it.

First of all when you're talking about some imagined necessity of reducing CO2 (good for you for not saying carbon) you're not talking about climate change. You're talking about climate catastrophism. That's the believe the world is coming to end at some unknown time perhaps hundreds of years into the future because we humans have been too successful burning fossil fuels for energy. Oh, and why do Warmiacs never want to mention nuclear or the fact their environmental arm won't let them flood any more of the natural world for hydro. Those two alternatives might actually work.

Al Gore is an incompetent, boob who had the gift of gab, the right connections and got lucky in his bank account. However almost every claim he's ever made on a coming climate catastrophe has been proven to be incorrect. Do you really want to get into Al Gore? I'm thinking maybe you don't. But if you do maybe we can discuss Greta too.

If you're talking wind and solar you can't compete with China for the tech. They own or control almost all the earth's rare earth minerals wind and solar rely on. They also have a cheaper work force. Your connections can make a few illusory bucks on the side if the government offers enough tax breaks and subsidies. There's no evidence the move to alternative energy is improving western economy. That's because it's not.

You lasso little Denmark out of the herd of facts and suggest that shows something. Very well, now do Germany. Tell the Germans why they should be happy about freezing in the dark this winter after their boondoggle of a massive and unsuccessful attempt to move to alternative energy. Then we can discuss France, the UK and the rest of them. Giorgia Meloni thanks you for another plank to her platform of things that turned to catastrophes under the old government. She was able to defeat them because of their screw-ups. I'm not even sure Denmark is that happy with where they are as far as energy goes but that's another advantage to using little Denmark. Who's going to spend the rest of the day checking?

Climate catastrophism is about politics.

Alternatives at this point are different. They aren't "better." Possibly some time in the future but at this time they are inferior to fossil fuels by any useful metric. 

Oh, and I would say the elephant in the room is even if you do succeed in impoverishing the west by scaring them into subservience under the cloak of some sort of imagined future catastrophe caused by too much CO2 it wouldn't matter. India and China won't get off the fossil fuels. They're too useful.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 1. I will also say that there have also been many volcanic eruptions in the past 20+ years.

2. My point is that the climate change evangelists have become a business and politician in the western world have been baptized by them enough for their message to become de riguer and a mantra and  politically correct now.

3. The Western societies are doing a lot, it is costing us a lot and yet, the real problem nations are getting worse and doing nothing.

4. Worse of all it the hypocritical approach as we, in the Western world, are using the poorer nations as our excuse and sending work, garbage and more for them to do so pollute even more and we can sit on our white horse wearing our white armour and absolving ourselves of any blame.

5. The evangelists need to direct their wrath on the right place and until they do, I have no respect for them, their lifestyle or their message. Show me a poor climate evangelist. Even that little girl is now a multi millionaire. This is not political, this is a sham the way things are now.

1. Ok but why are you bringing THAT up ?  Do you think volcanoes are causing climate change ?  They're not.
2. Yes this is the politics, no argument from me.
3. Not really doing that much, and in terms of cost it's small % of GDP so not sure what you mean by a lot.
4. I... *think*... I agree here.
5. Well I agree that moralists are easy to pick apart...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning volcanoes and climate change, let's not forget that you started that one, Mike.

Quote

  

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. These changes are considered to be pretty much understood.  Volcanic activity and such explains it.  The causes of current climate change are as certain as you can get in climate science.  

 

BTW everything you say there is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but why are you bringing THAT up ?  Do you think volcanoes are causing climate change ?  They're not.
 

The argument is that volcanos have caused climate change in the PAST, so they COULD be the cause now.

Completely ignores the scale of the eruptions that can cause climate change is enormously greater than exists NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Let's go through that paragraph by paragraph. There's so much BS that's the only way to do it.

First of all when you're talking about some imagined necessity of reducing CO2 (good for you for not saying carbon) you're not talking about climate change. You're talking about climate catastrophism. That's the believe the world is coming to end at some unknown time perhaps hundreds of years into the future because we humans have been too successful burning fossil fuels for energy. Oh, and why do Warmiacs never want to mention nuclear or the fact their environmental arm won't let them flood any more of the natural world for hydro. Those two alternatives might actually work.

Al Gore is an incompetent, boob who had the gift of gab, the right connections and got lucky in his bank account. However almost every claim he's ever made on a coming climate catastrophe has been proven to be incorrect. Do you really want to get into Al Gore? I'm thinking maybe you don't. But if you do maybe we can discuss Greta too.

If you're talking wind and solar you can't compete with China for the tech. They own or control almost all the earth's rare earth minerals wind and solar rely on. They also have a cheaper work force. Your connections can make a few illusory bucks on the side if the government offers enough tax breaks and subsidies. There's no evidence the move to alternative energy is improving western economy. That's because it's not.

You lasso little Denmark out of the herd of facts and suggest that shows something. Very well, now do Germany. Tell the Germans why they should be happy about freezing in the dark this winter after their boondoggle of a massive and unsuccessful attempt to move to alternative energy. Then we can discuss France, the UK and the rest of them. Giorgia Meloni thanks you for another plank to her platform of things that turned to catastrophes under the old government. She was able to defeat them because of their screw-ups. I'm not even sure Denmark is that happy with where they are as far as energy goes but that's another advantage to using little Denmark. Who's going to spend the rest of the day checking?

Climate catastrophism is about politics.

Alternatives at this point are different. They aren't "better." Possibly some time in the future but at this time they are inferior to fossil fuels by any useful metric. 

Oh, and I would say the elephant in the room is even if you do succeed in impoverishing the west by scaring them into subservience under the cloak of some sort of imagined future catastrophe caused by too much CO2 it wouldn't matter. India and China won't get off the fossil fuels. They're too useful.

 

 

 

 

Your response was very light on fact. 
 

The West is already pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of despotic Arab nations. The West will become impoverished if our costs of power production exceed those of other nations. Since the technological shift to renewables is in full swing, if we allow oil and coal companies to keep us in the dark, we will literally be in the dark. 
Denmark? How about Iowa? Iowa generates 57% of its total electricity from wind. 
China? Can you show us any evidence that China is a dominant windmill supplier? As far as I know, the rotor/stator assemblies in wind turbines are conventional and don’t rely on rare earth metals. And, AGAIN, an electrical generator is an electrical generator. Unless it’s solar, it uses a rotor and a stator. It can be geothermal, hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, wind… rotor and stator. In all of them. So don’t give us this China crap. You don’t know that the hell you’re talking about.  You’re countering fact with your imagination. 
 

Earth itself doesn’t care about climate change. Earth will be fine. And so will the cockroaches. But humanity relies on food. The food is grown in fields. The fields rely upon sunlight and rain.  Disrupt that balance and people will die. People also live close to water.  I realize that you can barely read, but there’s a Cat 4-5 hurricane being unleashed on Florida as we speak.  So we will spend this money, either by switching over our electric generation and car propulsion, or by rebuilding cities over and over and over, because boneheads like you are just too dumb to understand simple scientific principles which you’ve been told about for fifty years.  

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

The argument is that volcanos have caused climate change in the PAST, so they COULD be the cause now.

Completely ignores the scale of the eruptions that can cause climate change is enormously greater than exists NOW.

And it ignores the fact that there are causes of CO2 emissions we can control, and causes which we cannot control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...