The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

[Cow Poke]

Well, that’s a reasonable business model.

So, lay one out, Tass.

Prove that you can actually answer questions like an adult, and that you actually know what a business model is and how it works.

Lay out your business model for solving the problem.

[Tassman]

We've been here before, and you have never been able to come up with

"this is what needs to be done,

The problem:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And what needs to be done:

“The Paris Agreement's long-term goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change”.

this is what it will cost,

It’s not really the sort of question one asks if the only alternative is our destruction, as the evidence indicates.

and this is what the result will be".

‘Survival’ of the species, if we’re lucky.

That's all I've ever asked for.

You've been answered many times. You're in denial.

[Cow Poke]

The problem:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And what needs to be done:

“The Paris Agreement's long-term goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change”.

It’s not really the sort of question one asks if the only alternative is our destruction, as the evidence indicates.

That's some kind of business model ya got there, fella --- it's almost like "if you have to ask the cost, you can't afford it".

‘Survival’ of the species, if we’re lucky.

Wow, I'm impressed!!!!! "If we're lucky"

You've been answered many times.

You mean, have I seen a lot of jackassery disguised as an answer? Yes.

You're in denial.

You're a liar.

[Tassman]

That's some kind of business model ya got there, fella --- it's almost like "if you have to ask the cost, you can't afford it"..

If we are to survive as a species we have no choice other than to "afford it".

[Starlight]

We've been here before, and you have never been able to come up with

"this is what needs to be done,
this is what it will cost,
and this is what the result will be".

That's all I've ever asked for.

I've given you this before, in detail, and within the last year.

So I take your claims that you are sincerely interested in this and have never received an answer to it as 100% lying and trolling on your part.

Nor, I note, was any part of the OP talking about those issues. When your trolling was called out you just slide to "oh, well what I was really serious about was actually X". As if. The title of this thread "Ever more shrill, ever less serious" describes you perfectly on this issue CP. A troll and a buffoon.

[Roy]

Your post is an implicit comment that you think it's worth reading.

Yes.

But it wasn't worth reading. You just couldn't tell.

Admittedly this article was less obviously wrong than the article that used a picture of Egypt to claim there were pyramids in Antarctica, but there are plenty of reasons therein - including the graph, which despite the headline shows a definite uptrend - to discount it.

[Starlight]

“The Paris Agreement's long-term goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change”.

Yep. And pretty much the first thing it does to go about achieving that goal is it requires countries to write and publish their own detailed plan regarding how they're going to go about reducing their emissions, so that everyone can compare their plans and see who's pulling their weight and who's not. Different countries might have very different approaches - one might have plenty of land to plant trees on and plan to do a big tree planting program, another might plan to transition their power grid from primarily fossil fuels to primarily renewables. These different plans will give the financial costs of the intended course of action and the corresponding figure for greenhouse emissions reduction.

Pity the US in its ongoing goal to try to be the biggest loser is the only country in the world to have rejected this unprecedented international agreement and plan to save the world.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yep. And pretty much the first thing it does to go about achieving that goal is it requires countries to write and publish their own detailed plan regarding how they're going to go about reducing their emissions, so that everyone can compare their plans and see who's pulling their weight and who's not. Different countries might have very different approaches - one might have plenty of land to plant trees on and plan to do a big tree planting program, another might plan to transition their power grid from primarily fossil fuels to primarily renewables. These different plans will give the financial costs of the intended course of action and the corresponding figure for greenhouse emissions reduction.

Pity the US in its ongoing goal to try to be the biggest loser is the only country in the world to have rejected this unprecedented international agreement and plan to save the world.

Vague claims of doom, but no actual specifics beyond, ‘give the government more power over your life’.

[Roy]

Pity the US in its ongoing goal to try to be the biggest loser is the only country in the world to have rejected this unprecedented international agreement and plan to save the world.

AFAICT the Vatican haven't signed or ratified it yet, though for different reasons than the US.

[Starlight]

AFAICT the Vatican haven't signed or ratified it yet, though for different reasons than the US.

I can't find anything to tell me whether the Vatican has or hasn't officially signed the agreement as a country... for whatever relevance that has since their emissions will be so close to zero that they're not relevant.

What I can find is page after page of the Vatican urging strong action on climate change, supporting the Paris Agreement, arguing that countries should implement the Paris Agreement faster and more strongly.

For once in history, the Catholic Church seems to have somehow managed to be on the correct side of an issue. Strange.

[oxmixmudd]

I see. So if the attempt to maintain the survival of life on the planet is too expensive then it’s best forgone. Well, that’s a reasonable business model.

I think in your response here is one of the problems. This planet has been much, much hotter in the past without jeopardizing the 'survival of life on the planet'. There is little doubt that short of a nuclear holocaust with every bomb we have launched, what we are doing to the planet (e.g. in terms of warming) is not going to sterilize it. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, or that there won't be significant consequences. But the consequences are going to be felt more my ourselves that the majority of the biosphere would be my guess. Greenland was warmer in 1000AD. 100,000 years ago there was significantly less ice on the planet, specifically in Antarctica, than now. The seas where over 10 meters higher. The quickness of the temperature rise is, as far as we know, unprecedented (I'm not sure our window into climate change in the past is sufficiently fine grained to determine that), but the amount of warming has been seen many, many times before.

But OUR coastal cities will be inundated, OUR crop production and capacity to feed ourselves affected and so on. So it IS in our best interests to do something about it. But what we are doing in terms of warming will by no means destroy the planet itself.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

If we are to survive as a species we have no choice other than to "afford it".

We will survive (as long as we don't nuke ourselves). We were here 100,000 years ago when the seas were 10 meters higher and it was as warm or warmer than now. Our culture will have to change, our cities will have to move.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

AFAICT the Vatican haven't signed or ratified it yet, though for different reasons than the US.

And effect of the Vatican signing the agreement would be purely symbolic. AFAIK, They make no meaningful contributions to the problem.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

That's some kind of business model ya got there, fella --- it's almost like "if you have to ask the cost, you can't afford it".



Wow, I'm impressed!!!!! "If we're lucky"



You mean, have I seen a lot of jackassery disguised as an answer? Yes.



You're a liar.

CP, the evidence of the warming itself is impossible to dismiss. The evidence we are the cause is nearly as strong. It would do you well to look it over in spite of the hyperbole used to try to scare people into caring.

Jim

[Roy]

I think in your response here is one of the problems. This planet has been much, much hotter in the past without jeopardizing the 'survival of life on the planet'. There is little doubt that short of a nuclear holocaust with every bomb we have launched, what we are doing to the planet (e.g. in terms of warming) is not going to sterilize it. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, or that there won't be significant consequences. But the consequences are going to be felt more my ourselves that the majority of the biosphere would be my guess.

Many species are much more likely to go extinct that we are, because we live in and can manipulate a wide variety of environments, and have technology and tools to lessen the impact of climate changes.