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.
I’m down with this too. But to be clear I’m not advocating for government to run anything (that basically never works), I want them to clear regulations and invest more. Let the private sector drive it, just help them far more then we are now.
of course the climate changes over time and has historically. it is the rate of the current change that is alarming and unprecedented. In the short time since the industrial revolution, humans have caused the earth to move into a new geological epoch in the earth's time scale: from the halocene age to the anthropocene age.
if this is truly an "honest question", you should not be engaging in these discussions. rather, educate yourself. outside of your information silo.
who cares? sample size is completely irrelevant
No. I'm wondering how someone can simultaneously argue that we don't know anything about the earth's climate prior to 1880 and that climate change isn't manmade because the earth's climate has changed for billions of years.
Science is self-correcting and there are many examples, but if you have your mind made up why bother.
No no no....You don't get to change "wrong" to self correcting. It;s the same thing. I know you think it sounds good, but it's just an admission that it was wrong the first time. Sheesh
You obviously don't understand how science works.
I’ve always found your pov on this one issue quite thoughtful (though depressing.) I don’t agree with you. I think we can technology our way out of this mess.
We can't. Simply. It goes against human nature, many countries are not and will not buy into it, and many of the same climate scientists you guys quote also tell you it's too late. By decades. the snowball is rolling downhill and it's too big to stop.
Im sorry. Because you are using the term "correcting itself" Vs "wrong" I don't understand how science works? Thats adorable.
Self-correction is through replication. If a study can't be replicated, it loses credibility. It often means the initial finding was a chance finding, not that it was "wrong".
Science led to fracking breakthroughs...which produced cheap natural gas and reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Wonderful. Still changes nothing. Human behavior. Country actions and on and on. It's a combination of being past the point of no return combined with little real desire as a species to give up the things that make us happy. Scientists can prattle on all day about what they think should be done but that ain't changing a darn thing.
Love the deniers progression on Climate change the last 5 years or so --
Boy oh boy you sure misunderstand things dont you? There was no denial in my posts. In fact, I said we should focus on adaptation rather than mitigation, because I don't believe mitigation is the correct approach.
There are actually several levels
Oh, you're still denying big fella --at the moment, denying its fixable.
Yes that's true. Usually when you climate guys talk "denial" its almost always related to denial that it exists. I didn't realize you were moving the goalposts for this discussion. So you are right...I am denying that the climate initiatives will succeed. I don't believe they will. And I have already stated my reasons for that.
Future costs of "adaptation" will be orders of magnitude greater than the current costs of "prevention." Always and forever. It is a simple life concept.
You have zero data to back that up. Zero.
Yes and no. One means we pay less now. The other means someone else pays more later. People voting against prevention are simply arguing that someone else (i.e. younger people / future generations) should pay the costs.
Baloney.
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. It is also exactly what I quoted yesterday Carl Sagan saying before Congress 50 years ago.
That doesnt come close to saying what you said before. Youre just telling me how bad climate change "could" affect the economy.
dkp993 said:
Agree with your overall point. Often solutions come with their own sets of problems no doubt about it. Which is exactly why we need to be pushing forward and investing heavily into these things, most often as technology advances we find solutions to the problems that arise, it also often leads to new paths and advancements previously not thought of. We can’t be taking a half measured approach to this imo, there’s simply too much at stake.
Thanks and thats fair. I'm not saying do nothing. However I do think that putting too much effort into this might not be helpful.dkp993 said:
I mean that is kind of what he said.
Pretty funny how conservatives always seem to be on board with a clean energy economy, "but not immediately, it has to be a transition!"
Did you read the plan that he has? It doesn't explain how it will phase in. Just that fossil fuels will end suddenly and clean energy infrastructure will be up and running to take it's place without a hitch. What infrastructure has been built in the last 10 years that gives you any hope that the next 30 will get us there? We currently have less than 1% of the US fleet of cars on electric and they're already talking about rolling blackouts and limiting charging times in places like CA.
