Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

[Blackjack200]

I always love the "it's too big of a problem, so let's not doing anything" argument.

"It might adversely affect standards of living" he said, living in a country with record rates of suicide and drug overdoses.

 

[fskimospy]

I always love the "it's too big of a problem, so let's not doing anything" argument.

Glenn doesn’t care as his only goal is for us to not do anything about climate change.

A little while back his excuse was that we should let the market decide and that’s why we shouldn’t switch to renewables. When I took him up on this and said we should let the market decide, which means taxing fossil fuels to make them pay for their negative externalities his response was basically ‘fuck you’.

He’s a conclusion -> evidence person, not an evidence -> conclusion person.

 

[WelshBloke]

Glenn doesn’t care as his only goal is for us to not do anything about climate change.

A little while back his excuse was that we should let the market decide and that’s why we shouldn’t switch to renewables. When I took him up on this and said we should let the market decide, which means taxing fossil fuels to make them pay for their negative externalities his response was basically ‘fuck you’.

He’s a conclusion -> evidence person, not an evidence -> conclusion person.

I'm sticking with my theory in post #42.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Glenn doesn’t care as his only goal is for us to not do anything about climate change.

A little while back his excuse was that we should let the market decide and that’s why we shouldn’t switch to renewables. When I took him up on this and said we should let the market decide, which means taxing fossil fuels to make them pay for their negative externalities his response was basically ‘fuck you’.

He’s a conclusion -> evidence person, not an evidence -> conclusion person.

Let's not forget the fact we're actually working to prop up the non-renewable energy sources with federal subsidies, because it's important to keep those jobs around, or something.

 

[Amused]

Thank you for helping create the political fiasco, sheeple. Don't join cults...ever. This whole thing has always been, and will always be, leftist fear mongering, while trying to extract money and raise taxes. Here is a clue: No amount of money is going to change what mother nature wants to do. If you think I'm wrong, try bribing tornadoes. Fuckme running!
There is a Trump cult and there is a climate change cult. Both are misguided.
Again- Climate doesn't care about money and it's going to do what it's going to do,with, or without us. Don't make your sucker bets and stop listening to people who are paid to make you a believer. IOW..don't be an idiot.

You know you sound just as fucking stupid as an anti-vaxxer, AIDS denialist and flat earther, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Let's not forget the fact we're actually working to prop up the non-renewable energy sources with federal subsidies, because it's important to keep those jobs around, or something.

Yes, it's one of those things where people either haven't thought it through or are actively attempting to deceive. 'Renewables aren't cost competitive with fossil fuels so long as you pretend all the subsidies we give fossil fuels don't exist!'

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sticking with my theory in post #42.

Haha, it is a possibility.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, it's one of those things where people either haven't thought it through or are actively attempting to deceive. 'Renewables aren't cost competitive with fossil fuels so long as you pretend all the subsidies we give fossil fuels don't exist!'

People hyperbolically discount the future value of things like global warming because they value things like immediate survival more. One way you achieve that immediate survival is by not artificially increasing the costs of things like heating oil, kerosene for lighting, gasoline to power the car they drive to work to earn income to live, and other things fossil fuels do to allow people to maintain an Industrial age lifestyle instead of living like the Amish. I'm fine if you remove the "subsidies" for fossil fuels but most are simply allowing production companies to delay their tax burdens as an incentive to produce more and stabilize prices. It's done for the same reason we "subsidize" agriculture; so the poors aren't whipsawed by huge swings in commodity prices. If you don't care about buffering the poor from the price shocks of "unsubsidized" energy sources then be my guest and save the Treasury some dough, it won't bother me one whit if some investor in an oil royalty trust gets a dividend of a few pennies less. Of course a pretty large "subsidy" to those same fossil fuel companies is LIHEAP and I doubt you'll be letting the poors freeze to save some carbon emissions.

Glenn doesn’t care as his only goal is for us to not do anything about climate change.

A little while back his excuse was that we should let the market decide and that’s why we shouldn’t switch to renewables. When I took him up on this and said we should let the market decide, which means taxing fossil fuels to make them pay for their negative externalities his response was basically ‘fuck you’.

He’s a conclusion -> evidence person, not an evidence -> conclusion person.

Again, if you want to build in carbon taxes to offset the externalities of things like the poors driving to work then have at it. I'm a bit surprised you want that since I thought you were all about progressive taxation and carbon taxes are about as regressive at it gets.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Thank you for helping create the political fiasco, sheeple. Don't join cults...ever. This whole thing has always been, and will always be, leftist fear mongering, while trying to extract money and raise taxes. Here is a clue: No amount of money is going to change what mother nature wants to do. If you think I'm wrong, try bribing tornadoes. Fuckme running!
There is a Trump cult and there is a climate change cult. Both are misguided.
Again- Climate doesn't care about money and it's going to do what it's going to do,with, or without us. Don't make your sucker bets and stop listening to people who are paid to make you a believer. IOW..don't be an idiot.

Mindless rant---CHECK
Defending mindless rant---CHECK
Repeatedly defending mindless rant---CHECK
compuwiz1 post?---CHECK!

 

[dyna]

Imho, we are on the precipice of moving to vast amounts of renewable energy. The outcome of that will drive down the demand of the polluting fossil fuels. The way to fight the problem is not to stop fossil fuels, it is to invest HEAVILY in renewable/cleaner energy. This means that the government needs to go completely ape shit on investment of money and people to ensure it is successful and get the world excited about it. Eventually it will overtake fossil fuels and they will become a thing of the past much like the walkman or 4:3 TVs. We know we need to do this because of limited natural resources and if it does indeed have any impact on global warming, you knock out two birds with one stone.

The reality is that if fossil fuels are the cause of global warming, we only have about 50-100 years at the current pace until we run out of natural resources. At that point global warming won't be a major talking point any longer. It will be how to learn to live like we did 100+ years ago but with 6-8 billion people in the world.

I also agree that the giant earth size heatsink won't work either, if global warming is just in a natural cycle of mother nature.

 

[UNCjigga]

Just stop! Trump has nothing to do with the way I have viewed this scam, from the first time I saw Gore and his medicine show. You bought it and I didn't, and I saw it for what it was. It was you, who has been duped, my friend. And my partisanship....really??? No. I have a brain, capable of independent thoughts.

I'm sorry, if you believe man, money and moar government, are going to change what mother nature does. You want to put money into something that makes an actually difference? Send your money to Uganda.

He's literally that frog in a pot of water that's building to a boil..."why should I jump? this is fine!"

 

[Zorba]

"Mitigating" the heat of computer parts just shifts it into the atmosphere and thus moving the problem heat. Since conduction via heatsink isn't really a solution for Planet Earth, you citing the cooling a computer part isn't really relevant to a discussion about climate change.

Space is the Earth's heatsink. The atmosphere basically the contact resistance between the CPU and the heat sink. The more greenhouse gases, the more voids in the thermal paste.

 

[Zorba]

It doesn't work because we can't scale a heatsink to planetary size to "fix" the problem. When the only relevant means of heat dissipation is via radiation then the solutions to heat buildup are (A) reduce the heat production caused by terrestial and manmade sources, (2) increase the rate of heat loss by radiation, or (3) decrease the amount of heat produced by incoming sun. 2 and 3 don't seem particularly practical right now from a scientific standpoint for reasons of scale or other potential adverse side effects. #1 would mean we either need to reduce our energy use which might adversely impact the standard of living for lots of folks or involve higher costs for "alternative" energy sources. It might be a tradeoff we're willing to make but just saying it's going to be nothing but beneficial is not being entirely truthful. Asking billions to forgo industrialization and adoption of western lifestyles is anything but a slam dunk. If you're going to propose it anyway then at the very least you should feel the obligation to frame it honestly like Obama did and say something akin to "prices will necessarily skyrocket" to obtain the benefits you seek.

Greenhouse gases are actively doing the opposite of your number 2. They are decreasing radiation from the surface to space. Man made heat is very insignificant compared to insulative effect of greenhouse gases.

 

[glenn1]

Greenhouse gases are actively doing the opposite of your number 2. They are decreasing radiation from the surface to space. Man made heat is very insignificant compared to insulative effect of greenhouse gases.

I'll tell the folks in third world countries who are reduced to eating lemurs that they should forgo industrializing and accept their bronze age lifestyle so that folks like you can address "global warming." I'm sure they'll be fine with starving to death to keep temperatures from going up a couple degrees.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/09/madagascar/

 

[Zorba]

I'll tell the folks in third world countries who are reduced to eating lemurs that they should forgo industrializing and accept their bronze age lifestyle so that folks like you can address "global warming." I'm sure they'll be fine with starving to death to keep temperatures from going up a couple degrees.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/09/madagascar/

So you post baseless bullshit that has no relation to reality, get called on it, so then you deflect. Great job. I'm sure Rush is proud of his little didohead.

What's sad is next week you'll post the exact same baseless crap.

 

[vi edit]

RIP that strawman. He died for Madagascar.

 

[fskimospy]

People hyperbolically discount the future value of things like global warming because they value things like immediate survival more. One way you achieve that immediate survival is by not artificially increasing the costs of things like heating oil, kerosene for lighting, gasoline to power the car they drive to work to earn income to live, and other things fossil fuels do to allow people to maintain an Industrial age lifestyle instead of living like the Amish. I'm fine if you remove the "subsidies" for fossil fuels but most are simply allowing production companies to delay their tax burdens as an incentive to produce more and stabilize prices. It's done for the same reason we "subsidize" agriculture; so the poors aren't whipsawed by huge swings in commodity prices. If you don't care about buffering the poor from the price shocks of "unsubsidized" energy sources then be my guest and save the Treasury some dough, it won't bother me one whit if some investor in an oil royalty trust gets a dividend of a few pennies less. Of course a pretty large "subsidy" to those same fossil fuel companies is LIHEAP and I doubt you'll be letting the poors freeze to save some carbon emissions.

Again, if you want to build in carbon taxes to offset the externalities of things like the poors driving to work then have at it. I'm a bit surprised you want that since I thought you were all about progressive taxation and carbon taxes are about as regressive at it gets.

I'm all about the free market and so I think we should stop having the government subsidize the fossil fuel industry. If we want to subsidize poor people's energy needs then we can just do that directly. I'm frankly baffled that you appear to think the answer to poverty is to give highly polluting industries a large implicit subsidy by saying they can pollute all they want and not have to clean it up.

The answer to poverty is to give poor people money, not allow large corporations to inflict huge damage on our climate without consequence.

 

[glenn1]

So you post baseless bullshit that has no relation to reality, get called on it, so then you deflect. Great job. I'm sure Rush is proud of his little didohead.

What's sad is next week you'll post the exact same baseless crap.

Yep, ignore minor inconveniences like deforestation while pursuing your carbon free dreams. You'll be living the high life in your Nissan Leaf while navel gazing about the mighthavebeens in the OP post about the 1970s. It's not like those 3rd world savages count anyway, amirite or amirite? Let them eat cake lemurs or whatever.

 

[Paratus]

It doesn't work because we can't scale a heatsink to planetary size to "fix" the problem. When the only relevant means of heat dissipation is via radiation then the solutions to heat buildup are (A) reduce the heat production caused by terrestial and manmade sources, (2) increase the rate of heat loss by radiation, or (3) decrease the amount of heat produced by incoming sun. 2 and 3 don't seem particularly practical right now from a scientific standpoint for reasons of scale or other potential adverse side effects. #1 would mean we either need to reduce our energy use which might adversely impact the standard of living for lots of folks or involve higher costs for "alternative" energy sources. It might be a tradeoff we're willing to make but just saying it's going to be nothing but beneficial is not being entirely truthful. Asking billions to forgo industrialization and adoption of western lifestyles is anything but a slam dunk. If you're going to propose it anyway then at the very least you should feel the obligation to frame it honestly like Obama did and say something akin to "prices will necessarily skyrocket" to obtain the benefits you seek.

I'll tell the folks in third world countries who are reduced to eating lemurs that they should forgo industrializing and accept their bronze age lifestyle so that folks like you can address "global warming." I'm sure they'll be fine with starving to death to keep temperatures from going up a couple degrees.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/09/madagascar/

Literally, What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

The added heat from human activity is about 15 times less than the added heat just into the oceans from the energy imbalance caused by excess CO2. (as Zorba stated above

(474EJ/year vs 7500EJ/year. )

Your number 1 plans does nothing . Neither will restricting the 3rd world from improving their standards of living.

Since you don’t bother to understand even the basics of what you preach is there any reason to take you seriously?

 

[glenn1]

I'm all about the free market and so I think we should stop having the government subsidize the fossil fuel industry. If we want to subsidize poor people's energy needs then we can just do that directly. I'm frankly baffled that you appear to think the answer to poverty is to give highly polluting industries a large implicit subsidy by saying they can pollute all they want and not have to clean it up.

The answer to poverty is to give poor people money, not allow large corporations to inflict huge damage on our climate without consequence.

Seems easier to just say you want to give money to the poors and skip the pretense of doing it via making energy more expensive for everyone and then just giving money to the poors to reduce the burdens of the energy price increases on them. Saves a step and accomplishes the same thing when you simply dispense with the "raising costs" part and skip to the "giving away money" part.

 

[Paratus]

Yep, ignore minor inconveniences like deforestation while pursuing your carbon free dreams. You'll be living the high life in your Nissan Leaf while navel gazing about the mighthavebeens in the OP post about the 1970s. It's not like those 3rd world savages count anyway, amirite or amirite? Let them eat cake lemurs or whatever.

I for one am now totally convinced. Especially due to how you obviously care about your fellow man in third world countries.

 

[ivwshane]

And there it is. We can't address climate change because it will raise the cost of energy on HIM. Other than glenn being wrong, its more of the same from him, fuck you, I got mine.

 

[Zorba]

Yep, ignore minor inconveniences like deforestation while pursuing your carbon free dreams. You'll be living the high life in your Nissan Leaf while navel gazing about the mighthavebeens in the OP post about the 1970s. It's not like those 3rd world savages count anyway, amirite or amirite? Let them eat cake lemurs or whatever.

More diversion. And stop with the concern trolling, you are the biggest FYGM poster on here and only talk about poor people when it fits your anti renewable energy agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems easier to just say you want to give money to the poors and skip the pretense of doing it via making energy more expensive for everyone and then just giving money to the poors to reduce the burdens of the energy price increases on them. Saves a step and accomplishes the same thing when you simply dispense with the "raising costs" part and skip to the "giving away money" part.

You don't seem to realize that they are two totally separate issues.

1) Carbon taxes on fossil fuels are good because they let the free market work. I'm a big free market supporter so this is a positive good in its own right. Since fossil fuels were first used they have gotten giant handouts from the government by virtue of their ability to pollute the environment without paying for it. It's basically the dictionary definition of a negative externality, and negative externalities should be removed whenever possible.

2) Poor people should be able to afford energy. That's why you give them money.

I imagine we both agree that huge carbon taxes should be levied on fossil fuel companies purely from a capitalism perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

More diversion. And stop with the concern trolling, you are the biggest FYGM poster on here and only talk about poor people when it fits your anti renewable energy agenda.

As I said before with glenn and climate change his thought process is not evidence -> conclusion it's conclusion -> evidence.

He starts with the answer that we should do nothing about climate change and then seeks to justify it instead of looking at the evidence of climate change and deciding what response is appropriate.