Are we sure global warming is bad?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 12, 2019 12:00 am

Hmmmmm...... should my last "yep" be a nope as the tragedy of the commons IS PLAYED OUT mostly by corrupt short term interests capturing/regulating the commons FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT rather than for the benefit of the commons? I'm think so, but I'm too buzzed to concentrate. Busy adding padding to my massage chair to see if it can also work as an acceptable recliner. I think it easily will with a custom made insert. Is having the 4D function massage my butt really worth an extra $500....or should I go with the padding?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun May 12, 2019 12:05 am

Bobbo

If we both agree that control is the key to solving the tragedy of the commons, why are you arguing?

We just had a guest staying the night from the Netherlands. He told me that the Dutch government is arranging so that all new cars in 10 years will be electric. This kind of measure is becoming more common, and will work to mitigate global warming. Sure it is not, by itself, enough. But a lot of similar measures will do the job.

Fracking has helped. Enough new natural gas has been released to reduce the burning of coal, which is the worst at emitting CO2. It amazes me how the organisations which claim to be environmentalist continue to oppose the technologies that are most effective at helping the environment. Fracking is an example, along with genetic modification and nuclear energy. So many idiots ......

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 12, 2019 12:15 am

Ha, ha..........Lance, you crack me up.

Why argue? BECAUSE you said TOTC was demonstrated by solving the Ozone Hole issue WHICH IT DIRECTLY WAS NOT. I think you actually do understand your error..........just your stubborn streak shining through. Stubborn being very polite. ..........and by "you said" the import is that that is how you "understood" the issue of TOTC. You actually might still not get it........only because you are that stubborn..............................? ======> aka: YES: THERE IS A HUGE NEED FOR REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUELS. Said agreement so far NO WHERE BETWEEN HERE/TODAY AND THE HORIZON. Partly because too many stupid people think moving to electrical cares will help.

Maybe you will understand what TOTC means. Maybe you will understand what bailing the Titanic with teacups means.

....................................but not yet.

Hence the tragedy.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun May 12, 2019 1:25 am

Bobbo

We are not bailing the Titanic with teacups. We are making a strong attempt to begin the process of mitigating global warming. The reason you can suggest teacups is because it is a truly big task. But you do not make allowance for the significant effort so far because your doom and gloom mentality gets in the way.

The biggest need initially is to stop digging coal out of the ground. That is a political and economic problem. Fracking helped, as I told you. Note that the help so far was an advance in technology. But the USA needs to get rid of the moron at the helm, and take serious action against burning coal. Find alternative jobs for coal miners. Replace burning coal with nuclear, solar and wind power. Which means a new POTUS.

It is also worth remembering that this is a long term problem and solutions will also take time. I realise there are blithering morons claiming that it is desperately urgent and that if we do not replace all fossil fuels by yesterday, we are doomed. But I cannot protect the world from idiots. We need to make a start, and we have made a start. We need to build on that start, but there is still time to mitigate against the worst.

There will be serious economic consequences to global warming, and that is inevitable. But the world is growing wealthier and the price will be paid without the dire consequences that you and other doom and gloom merchants love in your psychiatrically suspect way.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 12, 2019 3:09 am

.........but not yet.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10677
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sun May 12, 2019 3:50 pm

Given what we now know about historical climate change, it's a bit unrealistic to plan our existence around a static set of climate conditions. The climate has never remained static for long. In fact, massive climate changes are more the norm than the exception.

Certainly, we are responsible for the climate change we are creating due to our own activities, but we don't need to work ourselves up into a lather for any reason.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Sun May 12, 2019 4:53 pm

I'm not a doom and gloom merchant, but I agree with bobbo that the solutions you say are a good start are bailing out the Titanic with thimbles.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun May 12, 2019 9:19 pm

No offense intended, Mike, but that argument is a load of crap !

The analogy I used earlier is someone training for a marathon. This keen, would-be runner, has built up fitness to the point of running 20 kilometers. You go to him/her and say that it is a waste of time, since a marathon is 43 kilometers. So the trainee goes out and runs 43 kilometers and drops dead of the stress.

For everything, there is a beginning. You might think that the beginning of mitigating global warming is inadequate, but frankly, your opinion means nothing. What is important is that the problem is recognized, and the powers that be have made a start towards managing it. To quote the cliche, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Do not criticize the early steps. Encourage them, and work on the next ones.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10677
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sun May 12, 2019 10:25 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 9:19 pm
No offense intended, Mike, but that argument is a load of crap !

The analogy I used earlier is someone training for a marathon. This keen, would-be runner, has built up fitness to the point of running 20 kilometers. You go to him/her and say that it is a waste of time, since a marathon is 43 kilometers. So the trainee goes out and runs 43 kilometers and drops dead of the stress.

For everything, there is a beginning. You might think that the beginning of mitigating global warming is inadequate, but frankly, your opinion means nothing. What is important is that the problem is recognized, and the powers that be have made a start towards managing it. To quote the cliche, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Do not criticize the early steps. Encourage them, and work on the next ones.
There are good beginnings and non-beginnings. Slacktivism is defined by people who make minuscule gestures, while claiming that they are "doing something," when in fact they are contributing almost nothing to the solution.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 12:52 am

Ha, ha.........and Lance has reached his "data driven" limits demonstrating he doesn't understand the difference between an effective start, and a distraction. But he'll never admit it, if he ever understands it.

The analogy that might fit/explain is that the marathon runner can train all he wants to but Marathon is south of here....running North ain't gonna get you there.

Contra: I've stated the feel good initiatives that lance so much favors does at least start to inform the public and motivate them to elect politicians who might make the type of initial steps that would make a difference. EG: don't open up arctic waters to off shore deep water drilling for oil. Can we be more stupid?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon May 13, 2019 1:59 am

Not quite true.

A good start is to replace burning coal with burning natural gas. Humanity needs energy, and will get it even if the method is dirty. Much better to drill for natural gas, if that replaces coal. There is about three times the energy per unit carbon emitted from natural gas compared to coal. The ultimate stupidity is not drilling for gas, but burning coal. To get the same amount of energy, burning coal emits three times the CO2. Now THAT is stupid.

You have made a good point yourself, Bobbo, when you described humanity as addicted to fossil fuels. Quite true. So much so that we cannot break the addiction cold turkey. The withdrawal needs to be carefully managed. So a move from coal to gas is a positive step. Sure, later, the move will have to be away from all remaining fossil fuels. But initially, from coal to gas is a great start.

To try to dump all fossil fuels too quickly will achieve your dream, Bobbo. Megadeaths.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 2:15 am

Fair comment Lance. Not addressing how many teacups you admire.......but still.

..............and note through your good efforts: I'm pro Nuke.....as the transition power source.

Ha, ha...........finding truth in the middle between extremes?

...................................................so be it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Mon May 13, 2019 1:28 pm

>A good start is to replace burning coal with burning natural gas.

No it isn't. It is a good way to get a substantial reduction in CO2, but it does nothing to solve the problem, except maybe extend the deadline by a fewyears(I won't insult you by claiming the deadline is 2030).
'Training for a marathon' is not switching to natural gas, but by pursuing development of a cheaper CO2 free energy, with cheaper meaning without subsidies or mandates. You can switch all the coal to natural gas, and you are not one third of the way to a solution. You would still be emitting 7x more CO2 than the safe level, and realistically will not drop at all because other countries will pick up the slack by opening coal plants- you are training for a four mile race while thinking you are ready for a marathon. China has hundreds planned. You would still have to switch your natural gas to renewables. Switching to natural gas by spending resources on it is not helpful, and is harmful if those resources could have been used to pursue a real solution.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 1:35 pm

Yep.......I was gonna say something close to that "but" I get tired of constantly disagreeing with Lance. He's wearing me down.

still.......as a truly transitional tool, it could be part of the solution..........eh...is burning fossil fuels part of a solution to stop burning fossil fuels? All depends on time lines and alternatives.

of note is your reference to China. They get a lot of press for lowering the cost of solar panels (even with a 25% tariff?) and how they are avoiding opening a coal powered electrical plant for every 100MM K-Watt worth of production. What doesn't normally get mentioned as you have done is that at the same time, China is building about one coal fired plant per week. Thats how much energy they need..............you know........to run all those air conditioners.

There is NO INT'L REGLATION/ENFORCEMENT OF CARBON FOOTPRINT. We all know, or are stumbling towards the understanding of, what "tragedy" this represents.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Mon May 13, 2019 2:53 pm

> He's wearing me down.

Who knew such a thing is possible? Kudos to Lance!

>is burning fossil fuels part of a solution to stop burning fossil fuels? All depends on time lines and alternatives.

I'm working on quantifying this. Basically every climate modeler knows the answer, but doesn't like to say it as it is not convenient to the narrative of 'We must act now to stop global warming by enacting policy X'.

Here's an old post along those lines, though the current estimates of reserves are probably higher.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... game-over/

The most fascinating part of this to me is where they say 'model tuned to yield a 3C response.' They frequently argue against the idea that models are tuned to yield an output, claiming that the sensitivity is a result of chaotic simulations over which they have no control.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon May 13, 2019 3:20 pm

There seems to be a lot of black and white thinking going on here.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 4:19 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 3:20 pm
There seems to be a lot of black and white thinking going on here.
Youll find black and white at the ends of many color continuums. You got anything specific? Or just a waffling attempt at a black and white conclusion?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10677
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon May 13, 2019 5:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 4:19 pm
Cadmusteeth wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 3:20 pm
There seems to be a lot of black and white thinking going on here.
Youll find black and white at the ends of many color continuums. You got anything specific? Or just a waffling attempt at a black and white conclusion?
Wrong analogy. Black and white is binary thinking, while grayscale is more sophisticated.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 6:25 pm

You both miss the fact that there ARE black and white issues. A continuum with black and white at the extremes captures all shades of gray..........and much more.

landrew: too many misses.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon May 13, 2019 8:18 pm

Mike

You missed the point. I made it clear that switching to natural gas was an INTERIM measure, not a solution.

My point is that humanity cannot dump all fossil fuels rapidly, or else there will be a massive humanitarian crisis, including those megadeaths Bobbo likes so much. So we have to proceed a bit more slowly. But we can cut carbon emissions substantially by replacing coal with natural gas. Later, we replace natural gas with such things as hydrogen, synthetic fuel, biofuel, or electricity. The electricity needs to be generated with non fossil fuel methods like nuclear, solar, or wind.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon May 13, 2019 11:19 pm

...............thing is: "later"........is problematic. A Sword of Damocles that is pretty much ignored, even while the rats gnaw on the rope. No.......its more like an oncoming train and we are in a non-passing tunnel.

No.............its both. Heh, heh.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 14, 2019 4:06 am

There are two trains coming, Bobbo. The first is humanitarian crisis plus megadeaths due to idiots who try to do too much too quickly. The second train is much later, and is labelled global warming crisis.

The smart thing is to avoid being squashed by either train. Let the first past, and get through before the second can do damage.

We need to mitigate global warming, but in an intelligent way so that the mitigation does not cause major damage. Trying to get rid of ALL fossil fuels immediately is about as stupid as it is possible to be.

Not that the stupid action is an option. The governments of the world are not as stupid as certain people on this forum. They will proceed more slowly and avoid the worst consequences. We here can make like wankers and debate the issue, but we cannot influence what will happen.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 14, 2019 4:22 am

Lance: you think there is megadeath associated with over reacting to AGW? What color is the sky in your universe?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Tue May 14, 2019 5:08 am

>switching to natural gas was an INTERIM measure, not a solution.

I get that you are not calling it a solution. What you don't get is that it is not a useful interim measure either.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 14, 2019 5:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 4:22 am
Lance: you think there is megadeath associated with over reacting to AGW? What color is the sky in your universe?
Bobbo

What do you think if all our machinery could no longer run on fossil fuels ? What if the 60% of the worlds electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels was no longer available. Oh yes. The death toll would be incredible. Within a few months local communities would be killing each other for food. Forget about medical care. National economies would collapse. There would be new wars. Incredible human suffering. Any suggestion of such a thing represents unbelievable callousness.

Mike

Natural gas is ALREADY a useful interim measure. The USA is emitting less CO2 than it did ten years ago, because there is a lot more natural gas available with fracking, and less coal is being burned. We need to do more of that.

Sure it is temporary, and in due course natural gas will also need to be replaced. But burning natural gas with one third the emissions compared to coal is a step forward right now.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Tue May 14, 2019 1:17 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 5:23 am

What do you think if all our machinery could no longer run on fossil fuels ? What if the 60% of the worlds electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels was no longer available. Oh yes. The death toll would be incredible.
And suddenly, Lance makes a prediction of mega deaths. But aren't such predictions always wrong?

Sadly, it's plausible. Unlimited growth is not sustainable. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but odds are in my favor. Capitalism has no mechanism for reducing growth and definitely not for something like setting aside large nature reserves or extreme forms of regulation that would restrict using cheap forms of energy production. Those are the measures that would be needed to bring carbon levels back down to the levels that have sustained human life for a million years or so. But until mega deaths start happening, our current economic systems won't react.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10677
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Tue May 14, 2019 4:51 pm

Lausten wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 1:17 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 5:23 am

What do you think if all our machinery could no longer run on fossil fuels ? What if the 60% of the worlds electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels was no longer available. Oh yes. The death toll would be incredible.
And suddenly, Lance makes a prediction of mega deaths. But aren't such predictions always wrong?

Sadly, it's plausible. Unlimited growth is not sustainable. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but odds are in my favor. Capitalism has no mechanism for reducing growth and definitely not for something like setting aside large nature reserves or extreme forms of regulation that would restrict using cheap forms of energy production. Those are the measures that would be needed to bring carbon levels back down to the levels that have sustained human life for a million years or so. But until mega deaths start happening, our current economic systems won't react.
It's absurd to think that anyone, or any of us are qualified to predict the future.

A few will hit it correctly by chance, and a much smaller number will hit it consecutively by chance also, forming the illusion that they are somehow gifted with the ability to predict the future.

No can say with any certainty what the climate will do next, but it's a safe bet that our continued disruption of the carbon cycle will have negative effects; just as we can say that smoking won't guarantee lung cancer, but it will increase its likelihood significantly.

So stop prognosticating like you are gifted in doing that in some way.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Tue May 14, 2019 6:37 pm

>emitting less CO2 than it did ten years ago, because there is a lot more natural gas available with fracking, and less coal is being burned. We need to do more of that.


Natural gas is being used because it is cheaper than coal. I don't have a problem with that as I've said. However, it is not a useful step. That drop of 2/3 leads to about a 1/3 overall reduction in CO2. This difference in CO2 slows down global warming just a tad. Even if done globally, it would still leave the planet at 3x more than the safe level, and growing. This interim measure does not achieve very much. I will try to quantify this later.
Expending resources to implement this is not worthwhile. However, as you said, this happened organically because it was cheaper.

It is nothing to celebrate though.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 14, 2019 9:35 pm

I really do not care that it was done because it was cheaper. The important thing is that it was done.

True that I was kind of making a doom and gloom prediction, and such predictions are always wrong. But it is still correct that humanity is addicted to fossil fuels, and a cold turkey withdrawal could be nothing but disastrous. For example, if all agricultural machinery was forbidden to use fossil fuels, most would become useless and food productions would drop. The consequence is obvious.

So it is important that the withdrawal from fossil fuels be carefully managed. Of course, this is what will happen. Governments are often idiots, but in this case they are much smarter than MIke, Lausten or Bobbo, and will get away from fossil fuels slowly and with care.

This, of course, is the reason why what I posted is NOT a doom and gloom prediction. Because it is not going to happen.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue May 14, 2019 10:16 pm

The DUMBEST thing yet said on this subject is:
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 4:06 am
There are two trains coming, Bobbo. The first is humanitarian crisis plus megadeaths due to idiots who try to do too much too quickly.
Quite the denial fantasy train. Lance making more extreme unhinged statements lately. I assume just tired of repeating himself and exercising a bit of rhetoric?

.....................still goes to the core though. Failure to recognize the magnitudes of the threats looming and time frames in which responses can be made before they have any effect.

Lausten as usual making statements so general they have no application. Good boy.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 14, 2019 10:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:16 pm
. Failure to recognize the magnitudes of the threats looming and time frames in which responses can be made before they have any effect.

This is the dumbest thing yet said.

Failure to recognize the consequences of panicky actions, without appropriate caution, will result in massive humanitarian disaster. Such would literally be a crime against humanity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 15, 2019 12:01 am

..........pretty steep decline there. Better to stick with "data" as you raison d'etre.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Wed May 15, 2019 12:14 am

> The important thing is that it was done.

Being cheaper is the only reason this is important. The impact of the CO2 reduction on global temperatures is small.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Wed May 15, 2019 12:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:35 pm
So it is important that the withdrawal from fossil fuels be carefully managed. Of course, this is what will happen. Governments are often idiots, but in this case they are much smarter than MIke, Lausten or Bobbo, and will get away from fossil fuels slowly and with care.
As Bill Hicks said, "Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here's American Gladiator. Watch this. Go back to sleep. Your government is in control." If you don't know who that is, he was a comedian. It was sarcasm.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 am

Lausten

Under your current president, you are being ruled by an idiot. I am trusting that sufficient Americans have the smarts to dump the arsehole. After all, another couple years will pass quickly.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 15, 2019 3:18 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:01 am
..........pretty steep decline there. Better to stick with "data" as you raison d'etre.
Not needed for you, Bobbo. A little thought will show I am correct. After all, you told me yourself of the addiction to fossil fuels. What do you think will happen if they are cut off ?

For a start, agriculture will grind to a halt. Farmers cannot grow food without fuels to power their tractors and other machines. Food production will slow almost to zero and the population will starve.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18563
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 15, 2019 4:23 am

Lance: YOU are the only person that has ever uttered such a baseless hypothetical: 'Imagine if all fossil fuels were cut off in an instant."

You can't be that stupid. I'd say at least that weed you are overconsuming is carbon neutral....but thats only if you grow local and organically.

Put the pipe down......and try to be relevant.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed May 15, 2019 9:19 am

Of course fossil fuels will not be cut off in an instant, or even over a few years. The powers that be are not that stupid.

It is you, Bobbo, along with Lausten and Mike, who are constantly talking of how we must take urgent and drastic action.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Wed May 15, 2019 1:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:19 am
Of course fossil fuels will not be cut off in an instant, or even over a few years. The powers that be are not that stupid.

It is you, Bobbo, along with Lausten and Mike, who are constantly talking of how we must take urgent and drastic action.
"drastic" is your word. I'd be happy with the US government doing just about anything. I heard this morning that oil companies are using solar power to run their equipment now. Pretty funny. Capitalism is finally catching up, but most likely it's too little too late.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3885
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Wed May 15, 2019 1:18 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 am
Lausten

Under your current president, you are being ruled by an idiot. I am trusting that sufficient Americans have the smarts to dump the arsehole. After all, another couple years will pass quickly.
Trump is a symptom. Global warming has almost never been mentioned in a Presidential debate. Solar panels went up on the White House because there was a "crisis", then they came down. Bush II altered language in scientific documents. A lot of people "trusted" that Trump wouldn't get elected the first time, look how that worked out.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com