What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (3 Viewers)

UN Report: things aren’t as bad as we thought; they’re a whole lot worse: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4307991002

Hey guys, we’re spending a lot of time arguing about impeachment, and health care, and gun control, and the economy. But when I read this it kind of feels like we’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. 

First things first: we’ve got to get rid of Trump. We’ve got to get rid of Republican control of the Senate. They’re not willing to work on this issue, many of them don’t even believe it IS an issue. And we can’t spend another 20 years arguing with them about it. THERE IS NO TIME. 

 
timschochet said:
UN Report: things aren’t as bad as we thought; they’re a whole lot worse: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4307991002

Hey guys, we’re spending a lot of time arguing about impeachment, and health care, and gun control, and the economy. But when I read this it kind of feels like we’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. 

First things first: we’ve got to get rid of Trump. We’ve got to get rid of Republican control of the Senate. They’re not willing to work on this issue, many of them don’t even believe it IS an issue. And we can’t spend another 20 years arguing with them about it. THERE IS NO TIME. 
Click to expand...
We need evidence of climate change before Republicans will act on change

 
Don't Noonan said:
We need evidence of climate change before Republicans will act on change
Click to expand...
If you’re not willing to accept the evidence already provided, then I’m skeptical you will ever accept anything additional. And it seems like we’re repeating the same dialogue on more than issue. 

But- this is not impeachment. On that issue your side can win, and we’ll all still survive (hopefully.) On this issue I’m not sure at all that we can survive your side. I doubt it. So we simply have to move on without you, against your wishes. That won’t be easy but what other choice is there? No offense but I’m not willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren on the altar of your ignorance. 

 
timschochet said:
If you’re not willing to accept the evidence already provided, then I’m skeptical you will ever accept anything additional. And it seems like we’re repeating the same dialogue on more than issue. 

But- this is not impeachment. On that issue your side can win, and we’ll all still survive (hopefully.) On this issue I’m not sure at all that we can survive your side. I doubt it. So we simply have to move on without you, against your wishes. That won’t be easy but what other choice is there? No offense but I’m not willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren on the altar of your ignorance. 
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, are you implying I don't care about my kids and future grandchildren?

 
You know, Don’t Noonan, there really is, or should be. a  respectable conservative position on this issue. It is this: “climate change is real, we need to take immediate action, but we don’t want far left solutions that might destroy our economy. Forget the Green New Deal, we need to pursue market based solutions. Yes the government will have to be involved but let’s find a way to do that and still protect capitalism.” 

How I wish Republicans were making that argument. If they were I would be very sympathetic to it. But your position, which is also President Trump’s which is “it’s all nonsense it’s not happening let’s do nothing”- it’s unacceptable. We can’t live with it. 

 
timschochet said:
You know, Don’t Noonan, there really is, or should be. a  respectable conservative position on this issue. It is this: “climate change is real, we need to take immediate action, but we don’t want far left solutions that might destroy our economy. Forget the Green New Deal, we need to pursue market based solutions. Yes the government will have to be involved but let’s find a way to do that and still protect capitalism.” 

How I wish Republicans were making that argument. If they were I would be very sympathetic to it. But your position, which is also President Trump’s which is “it’s all nonsense it’s not happening let’s do nothing”- it’s unacceptable. We can’t live with it. 
Click to expand...
It is up to people like you to convince us change needs to happen.  You simply aren't very convincing as of yet.   :shrug:

I wouldn't be posting in here if I didn't have worries about my kids and grandchildren.  I genuinely would like to know why you are so worried.

 
Don't Noonan said:
What year do you predict life on Earth will end if no changes are made?
Click to expand...
It won’t end. It will just become more and more miserable. According to the scientists within 40-50 years our coastlines will be uninhabitable for humans. Since I live near the beach and don’t want to move, I’m really not so good with that idea. 

 
timschochet said:
It won’t end. It will just become more and more miserable. According to the scientists within 40-50 years our coastlines will be uninhabitable for humans. Since I live near the beach and don’t want to move, I’m really not so good with that idea. 
Click to expand...
How’d those ice age predictions work out?

 
timschochet said:
No. It’s not intentional. I am saying that your position, if adopted by our society, will lead to their doom. 
Click to expand...
How? explain how...There has been zero evidence to support this claim yet it is made over and over and over again.

Humans will adapt..Will some be affected? maybe..and if the position is "well if one life is impacted it is important" i say bull hockey.   I am tired of this "we are all doomed" mindset..This is just flat out not true.

 
timschochet said:
It won’t end. It will just become more and more miserable. According to the scientists within 40-50 years our coastlines will be uninhabitable for humans. Since I live near the beach and don’t want to move, I’m really not so good with that idea. 
Click to expand...
This makes no sense..none..what coast lines?  The current ones?  All of them ever? Like we cant live on the coast at ALL in 40 years?   Or will the coast lines change?  Absurd in every possible way.

 
The report says that even if all unconditional commitments under the Paris Agreement are enacted, global temperatures are expected to rise by 5.8 degrees by 2100, bringing even wider-ranging and more destructive climate impacts.

So at this point, I say we give up.  We are "doomed" anyway.  Why even try at this point?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“There has never been a more important time to listen to the science," Guterres said. "Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heat waves, storms and pollution.

This, to me, does not seem to be enough to "doom" future generations....But that's just my opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don’t want to do this again. You have all the information you need. I’m not interested in trying to convince you any longer. We’re going to need to push past your position. Hopefully you’ll change your mind and join us; it’s never too late. 
Click to expand...
That isn't going to work.  Trump will likely win again in 2020.  Folks like me that realize Trump is doing a great job need to understand why spending billions of dollars on climate change is necessary when there are conflicting reports from scientists.  Seems like it could be a huge waste of money and that debt will hurt my kids/grandkids.

 
supermike80 said:
How? explain how...There has been zero evidence to support this claim yet it is made over and over and over again.

Humans will adapt..Will some be affected? maybe..and if the position is "well if one life is impacted it is important" i say bull hockey.   I am tired of this "we are all doomed" mindset..This is just flat out not true.
Click to expand...
If I understand your position correctly, (and please let me know if I am wrong) you accept that man made climate change is happening but you think we should do nothing about it. 

If that is correct I have to say that I find your point of view to be far more morally reprehensible than I do Don’t Noonan or Blutarsky. They honestly believe that climate change isn’t happening. 

 
timschochet said:
If I understand your position correctly, (and please let me know if I am wrong) you accept that man made climate change is happening but you think we should do nothing about it. 

If that is correct I have to say that I find your point of view to be far more morally reprehensible than I do Don’t Noonan or Blutarsky. They honestly believe that climate change isn’t happening. 
Click to expand...
No.  I am questioning the doomsday predictions.  

 I was slightly tongue-in-cheek with the post saying even if we do enact all the Paris agreement provisions, we are still doomed-- but that's what it said.   It does seem to be the message

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
No.  I am questioning the doomsday predictions.  
Click to expand...
There are too many faulty doomsday predictions out there, which undermines the real problems and credibility. But there has been a change in Republican attitudes on this, dramatically evidenced by the differences between old school Rick Scott who sought to ban the term Climate Change in official Florida documents, and younger Ron DiSantis who has made clean water, the environment and sea-level rise a priority.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#663d608312d6

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article230104349.html

 
SoBeDad said:
There are too many faulty doomsday predictions out there, which undermines the real problems and credibility. But there has been a change in Republican attitudes on this, dramatically evidenced by the differences between old school Rick Scott who sought to ban the term Climate Change in official Florida documents, and younger Ron DiSantis who has made clean water, the environment and sea-level rise a priority.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#663d608312d6

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article230104349.html
Click to expand...
Good links thanks.

here is my thing..Yeah....Florida can certainly measure the sea levels. They can measure the cleanliness of the water, they can measure pollution.  And they may all be climate change related.  I'm down with that.  What I am NOT down with, is when people like Tim post things like "If we don't fix this we are doomed" Its untrue and causes more problems than it is worth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If I understand your position correctly, (and please let me know if I am wrong) you accept that man made climate change is happening but you think we should do nothing about it. 

If that is correct I have to say that I find your point of view to be far more morally reprehensible than I do Don’t Noonan or Blutarsky. They honestly believe that climate change isn’t happening. 
Click to expand...
Show me one post where I have said anything about climate change not happening. Here you go again Tim. You have no idea what I believe so stop posting stuff you know Joe doesn’t want. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t want to do this again. You have all the information you need. I’m not interested in trying to convince you any longer. We’re going to need to push past your position. Hopefully you’ll change your mind and join us; it’s never too late. 
Click to expand...
This. x1000. 

 
John Blutarsky said:
Show me one post where I have said anything about climate change not happening. Here you go again Tim. You have no idea what I believe so stop posting stuff you know Joe doesn’t want. 
Click to expand...
I apologize. In the past, you have given “likes” to Don’t Noonan when he questioned the existence of climate change. So I naturally assumed you agreed with him. But I will accept that you don’t. Feel free, if you wish, to explain your full position. 

 
timschochet said:
I apologize. In the past, you have given “likes” to Don’t Noonan when he questioned the existence of climate change. So I naturally assumed you agreed with him. But I will accept that you don’t. Feel free, if you wish, to explain your full position. 
Click to expand...
Try and make this place better. Happy Thanksgiving. 

 
supermike80 said:
Good links thanks.

here is my thing..Yeah....Florida can certainly measure the sea levels. They can measure the cleanliness of the water, they can measure pollution.  And they may all be climate change related.  I'm down with that.  What I am NOT down with, is when people like Tim post things like "If we don't fix this we are doomed" Its untrue and causes more problems than it is worth.
Click to expand...
It’s not me saying that. It’s the scientists. What I’m saying is we should listen to them. 

Actually I’m nowhere near as pessimistic as the scientists are because they never take into account new human innovation and technology. Between now and 2050 we are going to create things that we can’t even conceive at the moment which may alleviate many of our concerns. So I’m not really the doom and gloom guy you think I am. 

But- we need time. If we can’t stop the effects of climate change, we can at least slow them down, enough for the geniuses among us to create those innovations. And the current Republican position, led by our President, is simply unacceptable. 

 
John Blutarsky said:
I don't make broad generalizations like you or make posts on how other people think. I hope you see the difference. 
Click to expand...
And I don’t post multiple links without bothering to read them, and when I DO post opinion pieces I attempt to defend them and engage in discussion. 

But I’m sure we can all find ways to improve. 

 
timschochet said:
And I don’t post multiple links without bothering to read them, and when I DO post opinion pieces I attempt to defend them and engage in discussion. 

But I’m sure we can all find ways to improve. 
Click to expand...
That's a false narrative. I post links that I feel are pertinent to threads here. That's much better than broad generalizations and posting about what someone thinks when you have no idea. As I said, have a wonderful Thanksgiving. 

 
timschochet said:
It’s not me saying that. It’s the scientists. What I’m saying is we should listen to them. 

Actually I’m nowhere near as pessimistic as the scientists are because they never take into account new human innovation and technology. Between now and 2050 we are going to create things that we can’t even conceive at the moment which may alleviate many of our concerns. So I’m not really the doom and gloom guy you think I am. 

But- we need time. If we can’t stop the effects of climate change, we can at least slow them down, enough for the geniuses among us to create those innovations. And the current Republican position, led by our President, is simply unacceptable. 
Click to expand...
When you say "if we don't fix this we are doomed"" I peg you as a doom and gloom guy.  I mean it's just simple facts.  You actually used the word doom so what else would I peg you as?

I am seeing lots of words from scientists, I even quoted one above, which does NOT say doom and gloom to me.  

The first link that sobedad posted specifically debunked the doom and gloom theory and claims there is growing support among scientists to lower the rhetoric on that

 
I’m not doubting it’s existence, but from the links I’ve seen the US has been far surpassed by China on emissions and the developing economies are increasing emissions on a large scale. This isn’t a United States solvable problem. To talk about what we spend here on fixing the issue is a fruitless discussion without having buy in from China and India, among others. To wreck our economy and not even dent the problem as others increase emissions isn’t a solution either. 

 
Shula-holic said:
I’m not doubting it’s existence, but from the links I’ve seen the US has been far surpassed by China on emissions and the developing economies are increasing emissions on a large scale. This isn’t a United States solvable problem. To talk about what we spend here on fixing the issue is a fruitless discussion without having buy in from China and India, among others. To wreck our economy and not even dent the problem as others increase emissions isn’t a solution either. 
Click to expand...
you know we started before China right?

 
joffer said:
that those who caused this should lead on fixing it?
Click to expand...
As long as it's the U.S. and not China, he would be on board.  I'd go out on a limb and say he's also willing to also overlook that China has long surpassed the U.S. in emissions.  I'm sure it would just be a beneficial byproduct that acting alone would wreck the U.S. economy and allow the Chinese economy to surpass that of the U.S. while overall world emissions would continue to rise. 

 
Shula-holic said:
As long as it's the U.S. and not China, he would be on board.  I'd go out on a limb and say he's also willing to also overlook that China has long surpassed the U.S. in emissions.  I'm sure it would just be a beneficial byproduct that acting alone would wreck the U.S. economy and allow the Chinese economy to surpass that of the U.S. while overall world emissions would continue to rise. 
Click to expand...
China has also long surpassed the US in investments in renewable energy. 

 
A discussion we are having in here in Denmark is the price of public transportation (we have well functioning and efficient public transportation in the cities and between them, not so much in the countryside). The (far) left wants to lower the price by 30% to entice car users into public transportation to lower the CO2 load (they also desperately want private cars out of the cities, regardless). Study is made on the effect and it comes to to a 0,3% reduction as people who are walking or bicycling today would be incentivized to use public transportation and wil then count against any car users who switch.

What will bring impact? Change the fuel from gasoline/diesel to electricity/hydrogen.

Another example of the far left thinking here is to incentivize park and ride, to keep cars out of the cities (and get more people to use public transportation, better air quality in the cities yada-yada-yada). Only place they have succeded (since the suburbs are viciously fighting against becoming the big cities parking lots) is a place 30 miles from Copenhagen from where for the next ten years will be a train an hour to Copenhagen and back. Yet if we switch to electric/hydrogen the air quality in the cities improve instantaneously...

It's almost as if they are fighting last century's "wars" with last century thinking.

Yes Greta, I'm looking at you

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
A discussion we are having in here in Denmark is the price of public transportation (we have well functioning and efficient public transportation in the cities and between them, not so much in the countryside). The (far) left wants to lower the price by 30% to entice car users into public transportation to lower the CO2 load (they also desperately want private cars out of the cities, regardless). Study is made on the effect and it comes to to a 0,3% reduction as people who are walking or bicycling today would be incentivized to use public transportation and wil then count against any car users who switch.

What will bring impact? Change the fuel from gasoline/diesel to electricity/hydrogen.

Another example of the far left thinking here is to incentivize park and ride, to keep cars out of the cities (and get more people to use public transportation, better air quality in the cities yada-yada-yada). Only place they have succeded (since the suburbs are viciously fighting against becoming the big cities parking lots) is a place 30 miles from Copenhagen from where for the next ten years will be a train an hour to Copenhagen and back. Yet if we switch to electric/hydrogen the air quality in the cities improve instantaneously...

It's almost as if they are fighting last century's "wars" with last century thinking.

Yes Greta, I'm looking at you
Click to expand...
Those do not really seem like bad policies though.  I can see the concern about bikers/walkers though.  Does the transit system not have a distance based pricing concept?  That should be important to have. I get why the suburbs don't want to be park and rides, but the outsized returns of agglomeration in cities are not slowing down.

 
Slapdash said:
Those do not really seem like bad policies though.  I can see the concern about bikers/walkers though.  Does the transit system not have a distance based pricing concept?  That should be important to have. I get why the suburbs don't want to be park and rides, but the outsized returns of agglomeration in cities are not slowing down.
Click to expand...
They are policies that appear to serve one agenda (climate/environment), but are ineffective in achieving this goal, precisely because they are not in tune with what reality is and what other solutions are available. Why the Danish far left is proposing these, despite their inefficiency towards reaching the stated goal, makes me suggest the goal is really something different, but I don't want to speculate.

As to pricing: the entire country is divided into zones for the purpose of pricing public transportation and the more zones you cross on your journey the higher the cost. Most trips in a city are within one or two zones (the minimum pricing is for two and costs approx $2.50).

IMHO if you want to entice park and ride then you have to connect 1) an efficient and sufficient parking infrastructure with  b) an efficient and low cost public transportation infrastructure while 3) introducing roadpricing and 4) revenue sharing of said road pricing with suburban municipalities where the parking structures are located. The stated goal should be about reducing traffic density with some reasoning (which currently escapes me) as to why the burden of using multimodal transportation is in the overall benefit of all of society as opposed to single mode transportation

 
msommer said:
They are policies that appear to serve one agenda (climate/environment), but are ineffective in achieving this goal, precisely because they are not in tune with what reality is and what other solutions are available. Why the Danish far left is proposing these, despite their inefficiency towards reaching the stated goal, makes me suggest the goal is really something different, but I don't want to speculate.

As to pricing: the entire country is divided into zones for the purpose of pricing public transportation and the more zones you cross on your journey the higher the cost. Most trips in a city are within one or two zones (the minimum pricing is for two and costs approx $2.50).

IMHO if you want to entice park and ride then you have to connect 1) an efficient and sufficient parking infrastructure with  b) an efficient and low cost public transportation infrastructure while 3) introducing roadpricing and 4) revenue sharing of said road pricing with suburban municipalities where the parking structures are located. The stated goal should be about reducing traffic density with some reasoning (which currently escapes me) as to why the burden of using multimodal transportation is in the overall benefit of all of society as opposed to single mode transportation
Click to expand...
I agree with all of your policy proposals, but I'm confused by your last sentence.  The benefits of trains/buses over cars for commuting are pretty obvious from a societal perspective. 

 
Slapdash said:
I agree with all of your policy proposals, but I'm confused by your last sentence.  The benefits of trains/buses over cars for commuting are pretty obvious from a societal perspective. 
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's not what people want. Even today, so if you want to move people away from cars you have to have more compelling arguments than currently in play. 

 
msommer said:
Sea level change to affect 300 million people by 2100
Click to expand...
The sea level has been rising for about 20,000 years and at the same slope for about 6,000 years.  Why are we surprised now that it's still rising?

Don't Noonan said:
That isn't going to work.  Trump will likely win again in 2020.  Folks like me that realize Trump is doing a great job need to understand why spending billions of dollars on climate change is necessary when there are conflicting reports from scientists.  Seems like it could be a huge waste of money and that debt will hurt my kids/grandkids.
Click to expand...
It just depends on what we spend "climate change money" on.  If we spend it on what the left wants - guaranteed jobs, healthcare, free education, refit every building in the US for energy conservation, etc., we'll never get to where we are effectively combating the root cause of the possible issue.  

This is an example of what we need to spend those monies on.  The only way to cut down on carbon emissions is to provide a scalable solution that undercuts other energy generation methods on price.  Humans will use anything down to wood if the economics make it so.  We need to short circuit that.  All this money spent beating around the bush is just waste.  Throw money at the technologies that can make a sea change.

 
Sand said:
This is an example of what we need to spend those monies on.  The only way to cut down on carbon emissions is to provide a scalable solution that undercuts other energy generation methods on price.  Humans will use anything down to wood if the economics make it so.  We need to short circuit that.  All this money spent beating around the bush is just waste.  Throw money at the technologies that can make a sea change.
Click to expand...
You make sense to me. But the problem is I am not being given choices like this. I am increasingly forced to choose between the left’s imperfect solutions and the right’s insistence that there’s nothing to see, it’s not even happening. 

With those as my choices give me the left. At least they recognize the problem. The rest we can work out overtime. We can’t afford inaction. 

 
Sand said:
The sea level has been rising for about 20,000 years and at the same slope for about 6,000 years.  Why are we surprised now that it's still rising?

It just depends on what we spend "climate change money" on.  If we spend it on what the left wants - guaranteed jobs, healthcare, free education, refit every building in the US for energy conservation, etc., we'll never get to where we are effectively combating the root cause of the possible issue.  

This is an example of what we need to spend those monies on.  The only way to cut down on carbon emissions is to provide a scalable solution that undercuts other energy generation methods on price.  Humans will use anything down to wood if the economics make it so.  We need to short circuit that.  All this money spent beating around the bush is just waste.  Throw money at the technologies that can make a sea change.
Click to expand...
Manhattan Project / Space Race level commitment to make this type of tech scalable, real. Throw a few hundred billion at it (Manhattan Project was something like 30 billion in today’s dollars). Trump could even make it a reality show he hosts (biggest most powerful show ever) if that’s what it takes. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
484
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
5K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top