The reason why Repubs dont want to fix global warming

[Jhhnn]

Troll, nazi, white supremacist... all names given to anyone with a contrary opinion to that of the progressive-left collective.

Max falls under the same general heading. Born to troll.

 

[Blue_Max]

Progressive left collective. A name given to anyone with a contrary opinion to the conservative right.

nnnnnnnope. The progressive collective very much depend on the hive-mind philosophy, where all must be of one mind and agree to the same politics.
The 'non' are as varied as they come, even existing on the left of the political spectrum, just not as bury-the-needle left as the progressives are.

We're not militant like you are either; rioting, violence, shutting down events, dumping piss on people... and the progressives still want to paint themselves as noble, caring, loving... "the good ones". You're the furthest thing from it.

 

[Jhhnn]

nnnnnnnope. The progressive collective very much depend on the hive-mind philosophy, where all must be of one mind and agree to the same politics.
The 'non' are as varied as they come, even existing on the left of the political spectrum, just not as bury-the-needle left as the progressives are.

We're not militant like you are either; rioting, violence, shutting down events, dumping piss on people... and the progressives still want to paint themselves as noble, caring, loving... "the good ones". You're the furthest thing from it.

Told you so.

 

[Blue_Max]

Told you so.

"Troll" - used by the left as any disagreement, regardless of facts presented along with the argument made in order to dismiss it without thought.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Troll, nazi, white supremacist... all names given to anyone with a contrary opinion to that of the progressive-left collective.

Liar

 

[Victorian Gray]

(yes, this one deserves it) Lügenpost

nnnnnnnope. The progressive collective very much depend on the hive-mind philosophy, where all must be of one mind and agree to the same politics.
The 'non' are as varied as they come, even existing on the left of the political spectrum, just not as bury-the-needle left as the progressives are.

We're not militant like you are either; rioting, violence, shutting down events, dumping piss on people... and the progressives still want to paint themselves as noble, caring, loving... "the good ones". You're the furthest thing from it.

 

[Paratus]

first you have to let us know what's your position on the matter, are you asking because you serious on the matter on hand or are you defending the party.

If anything he's posted here is truthful he's got a background in geology and works in TX which probably means oil exploration.....

At any rate identifying what to "fix" isn't hard for those who understand the science. (Not saying you aren't one)

The American Chemical Society has really good (and long) explanation of how the climate works including the math behind it.

The first fix is obviously driving our CO2 emissions to zero. Glenn1 and boomerang have asked a similar questions to Taj's about how we'd go about doing this awhile back.

I took a shot at answering here:
[URL="https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/jeb-bush-on-climate-change-wtf.2432237/page-2#post-37420629"]Jeb Bush on Climate Change. WTF???[/URL]

It's a long post but the basics were to eliminate poverty by increasing standards of living to first world conditions so population would naturally reduce decreasing overall energy demand. I used renewables and nuclear to see if it was remotely feasible to provide power for 7 billion 1st worlders. It was.

Second, reducing atmospheric CO2 I did a back of the envelope calculation that showed an increase in dense rainforest of 70-80% would hold an amount of carbon equivalent to about 50PPM. Rainforest takes about 60-80 years to recover so if the population does peak, and land use recedes, letting rainforests recover might be one way to reduce CO2

[URL="https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/a-dismantling-of-one-of-the-last-bastions-of-climate-change-deniers.2440761/page-2#post-37588980"]A dismantling of one of the last bastions of climate-change deniers[/URL]

Now we know from the IPCC that eventual unchecked CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic environmental changes for our way of life, (sea level rise, changing weather pattern, ocean acidification. They even give a pretty good summary of risk through out the century in the 5th assessment report summary for policy makers .

PDF
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Finally the Paris Accords try to take into account what costs the developed and developing worlds can expend to minimize emissions and rein in the worst of the risk over the next century.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s/key-points-of-the-final-paris-climate-draft

We need both the environment and the economy so it's encouraging that global GDP is starting to become divorced from CO2 emissions.

 

[Blue_Max]

Liar

No evidence to back up your opinion?

I could go all night with evidence to prove mine... http://people.com/movies/amy-schumer-alt-right-trolls/

 

[Victorian Gray]

No evidence to back up your opinion?

I could go all night with evidence to prove mine... http://people.com/movies/amy-schumer-alt-right-trolls/

Bunky, the evidence is pretty much every post you make in this forum.

 

[Paratus]

nnnnnnnope. The progressive collective very much depend on the hive-mind philosophy, where all must be of one mind and agree to the same politics.
The 'non' are as varied as they come, even existing on the left of the political spectrum, just not as bury-the-needle left as the progressives are.

We're not militant like you are either; rioting, violence, shutting down events, dumping piss on people... and the progressives still want to paint themselves as noble, caring, loving... "the good ones". You're the furthest thing from it.

The "hive mind" as you put it is simply a set of shared values. That everyone should be treated equally under the law and that people should be treated on their own merits as individuals.

These are three things that you seem to struggle with. You want women and minorities treated as second class citizens and you can't help but paint entire groups with a broad brush in almost every post you make.

I suppose since you are referring to yourself as "we" I could lump you in with conservatives who shoot the wrong immigrants in cold blood to "take back their country, I could lump you in with angry lonely conservative men who threaten women with rape online. I could also lump you in with conservatives who wish to "curb stomp a liberal".

Instead I'll say you personally come across as angry and bitter. Someone who blames others for your misfortunes.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Don't waste your time on Max or Taj. Both of them are going to the deepest pits of Hell, and assuming the human race hasn't become extinct by the time they do their sentences, will reincarnate poor in the third world.

 

[brandonbull]

The "hive mind" as you put it is simply a set of shared values. That everyone should be treated equally under the law and that people should be treated on their own merits as individuals.

These are three things that you seem to struggle with. You want women and minorities treated as second class citizens and you can't help but paint entire groups with a broad brush in almost every post you make.

I suppose since you are referring to yourself as "we" I could lump you in with conservatives who shoot the wrong immigrants in cold blood to "take back their country, I could lump you in with angry lonely conservative men who threaten women with rape online. I could also lump you in with conservatives who wish to "curb stomp a liberal".

Instead I'll say you personally come across as angry and bitter. Someone who blames others for your misfortunes.

Your "hive mind" is a forced acceptance of shared values and don't be on the wrong end of the stick from the progressives. They are a nice group of individuals that will be inclined to show you what happens when they have to leave their walled enclaves to ask "who dare challenges our omnipotence with independent thought?". Hell hath no fury like a progressive questioned. They are too busy being the elites of society and creating and ASSIGNING labels to individuals.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Your "hive mind" is a forced acceptance of shared values and don't be on the wrong end of the stick from the progressives.

Hive mindsets can be found in all walks of life and are commonly referred to as "group think".

 

[FIVR]

Look at an elevation map of the country. The only liberal coastal areas that are under threat are in the north east. CA and the west coast as a whole rise out of the ocean steeply and won't be affected by global sea level rise much at all. The southern states on the other hand will be inundated with flooding.

Global warming screws over the south most, the north east second most, and the west and midwest the least.

 

[Commodus]

There's a hilarious irony to the Trump cheerleaders whining about conformity on the left when Tomi Lahren just got booted from The Blaze for daring to be pro-choice.

Here's the thing: both sides of the political spectrum tend to enforce a certain set of values. It's just a question of what those values are -- and frankly, I'd rather push overly hard for equality and reproductive freedom than let discrimination, hate and religious dogma take hold.

 

[fskimospy]

Look at an elevation map of the country. The only liberal coastal areas that are under threat are in the north east. CA and the west coast as a whole rise out of the ocean steeply and won't be affected by global sea level rise much at all. The southern states on the other hand will be inundated with flooding.

Global warming screws over the south most, the north east second most, and the west and midwest the least.

'Least' of course, still meaning 'incredibly badly'. I mean the NYC metro area alone accounts for approximately 10% of US GDP. If that all gets flooded then states and businesses all over the country that rely on customers/tax transfers from that area are screwed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your "hive mind" is a forced acceptance of shared values and don't be on the wrong end of the stick from the progressives. They are a nice group of individuals that will be inclined to show you what happens when they have to leave their walled enclaves to ask "who dare challenges our omnipotence with independent thought?". Hell hath no fury like a progressive questioned. They are too busy being the elites of society and creating and ASSIGNING labels to individuals.

Project often? Libs generally don't live in walled enclaves but rather urban centers & generally don't support the very conservative idea of making America into the walled enclave of Trumpian wet dreams.

 

[OutHouse]

1. Lower CO2 emissions as much as possible by getting away from coal and oil in power, transportation and factories. Embrace renewable energy and electric transportation wherever possible.

2. Global warming is caused by excessive CO2 trapping heat. Reducing our share of CO2 emissions prevents that trapping effect from getting worse.

3. The effect in 1 year? Negligible, that's not how climate science works. 10 years? Modest amount. End of the century? Very tangible.

4. Cost would be difficult to quantify, because phasing out fossil fuel may be compensated by renewable energy replacements. Losing a coal plant doesn't matter if solar and wind farms blossom in its place. That and remember: the consequences of excessive global warming include the flooding of coastal cities, ecosystem imbalances and, in the worst case, rendering areas uninhabitable. While there could be such a thing as excessive costs, penny pinching now won't matter much if there are environmental disasters later.

and how are the republicans going to make China & India to lower CO2 and to stop using coal?

and what about the Fukashima radioactivity being found in the pacific NW fish? no big deal right?

 

[woolfe9998]

and how are the republicans going to make China & India to lower CO2 and to stop using coal?

and what about the Fukashima radioactivity being found in the pacific NW fish? no big deal right?

There's already an agreement in place. The GOP just has to honor our end and not pull us out of it as Trump promised to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

 

[fskimospy]

and how are the republicans going to make China & India to lower CO2 and to stop using coal?

Already happening.

http://time.com/4708766/climate-change-coal-plant-decline/

Construction starts for coal-fired plants in China and India were down by 62% in January from a year earlier while new facilities starting operation declined 29%, according to the report. It said older plants in the United States and Europe are being retired at a record pace.

China, the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, said at that time its coal use would rise until 2030. But later data showed the peak passed in 2013 and consumption is falling.

 

[glenn1]

Already happening.

http://time.com/4708766/climate-change-coal-plant-decline/

Yes, new technologies should and will be adopted as they converge to economic parity with incumbent solutions. But it still doesn't mean you can ignore the engineering challenges of storage, maintaining baseline power, etc. which are the other key hurdles to switching to a "post fossil fuel" world. Too many sob stories about starving polar bears and not enough hard science and frank talk about economic tradeoffs is probably the biggest headwind against the 'green' supporters making progress right now. The pubic's bullsh!t detectors start going off when well-meaning people start talking about how easy it will be and how the only reason it isn't done already is because "Republicans are being greedy and lack empathy." It's going to be hugely expensive, it's going to be hugely disruptive (and perhaps have tons of negative impacts) and the ROI isn't assured. Start from that realistic assessment and make your case and maybe you'll start getting traction.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, new technologies should and will be adopted as they converge to economic parity with incumbent solutions. But it still doesn't mean you can ignore the engineering challenges of storage, maintaining baseline power, etc. which are the other key hurdles to switching to a "post fossil fuel" world. Too many sob stories about starving polar bears and not enough hard science and frank talk about economic tradeoffs is probably the biggest headwind against the 'green' supporters making progress right now. The pubic's bullsh!t detectors start going off when well-meaning people start talking about how easy it will be and how the only reason it isn't done already is because "Republicans are being greedy and lack empathy." It's going to be hugely expensive, it's going to be hugely disruptive (and perhaps have tons of negative impacts) and the ROI isn't assured. Start from that realistic assessment and make your case and maybe you'll start getting traction.

Those realistic assessments have been happening for many, many years now. I've never heard anyone (literally anyone) say that it's not going to be expensive and disruptive to implement, just that it beats the alternative. Everything you're advocating has been going on for a long time.

I don't think Republicans lack empathy, I think they are engaging in motivated reasoning driven by ideology. It's the same thought process that has people believing in creationism. They cherry pick data, emphasize small uncertainties, things like that.

 

[theeedude]

Republican states have placed a bet on extracting value from cheap non-union labor, and extracting value from the earth through mining, drilling, and farming. Basically same bets as low-value-add resource rich dictatorships around the world have done.
Cheap labor is turning out to be a disaster of a bet as automation and globalization makes even the cheapest, least protected, labor noncompetitive. Farming is going to be around, but it is becoming increasingly automated and commoditized, squeezing small farmers and employment out. Energy and natural resource extraction is now also being automated and energy in particular is being devalued by solar getting cheaper at an exponential rate. So the people who bet on wrong horses are now lashing out and blaming others instead of looking in the mirror.

 

[brandonbull]

Project often? Libs generally don't live in walled enclaves but rather urban centers & generally don't support the very conservative idea of making America into the walled enclave of Trumpian wet dreams.

Mark Zuckerburg doesn't support the idea of a separate enclave either. Just like the rest of the Liberal plantation owners.

 

[Commodus]

Yes, new technologies should and will be adopted as they converge to economic parity with incumbent solutions. But it still doesn't mean you can ignore the engineering challenges of storage, maintaining baseline power, etc. which are the other key hurdles to switching to a "post fossil fuel" world. Too many sob stories about starving polar bears and not enough hard science and frank talk about economic tradeoffs is probably the biggest headwind against the 'green' supporters making progress right now. The pubic's bullsh!t detectors start going off when well-meaning people start talking about how easy it will be and how the only reason it isn't done already is because "Republicans are being greedy and lack empathy." It's going to be hugely expensive, it's going to be hugely disruptive (and perhaps have tons of negative impacts) and the ROI isn't assured. Start from that realistic assessment and make your case and maybe you'll start getting traction.

The issue to me is that the Republicans are way too far in the other direction. You're not going to get meaningful progress from a party that takes bribes from the fossil fuel industry and is determined to eliminate as many environmental regulations as it can, no matter how much sense they make.