Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since every species alters its environment and the baseline carbon footprint per human is basically flat over thousands of years, I assume you mean the "human" problem. Obviously we need to get rid of some humans. Since you're obviously more concerned than me, you can go first.
Humans are not going to devolve or regress - it's counter to who we are as a species. What we do well is adapt, as we have proven for thousands of years. I suggest you quit crying and worrying and go have a beer with a friend. Just make sure you walk - cars are evil. And don't drink it cold - refrigerants are bad for the ozone. And it better be a local beer - transportation uses fossil fuels. And the hops - make sure they are organic - pesticides are a huge carbon emitter.
Interesting statistic for the board: Canadian carbon footprint per capita has increased since 1990 while the per capita footprint in the US has fallen since 1990.
Considering our entire society and civilzation is based off where the sea levels are now, it will be very expensive to adapt....
I am not in the least bit surprised. Canadians are producing more energy per capita, and their standard of living has increased since 1990. Whereas, the US is producing less energy per capita, and our standard of living has declined since 1990.
As we have been saying since the 1970s, the Democratic Party wants to push the US back into the stone-age and turn the US into a third-world nation. Their goal is to make the US exactly like North Korea, or worse.
If that is not very apparent after 20+ years of the Democratic Party blocking every source of energy production in the US, and lowering our standard of living, then people must be blind and/or utterly stupid.
Then how we producing more O&G than ever? .....under the Communist, Socialist, Islamist Obaba?
The rest of that is pure fiction.... Democrats want to the US to be like North Korea.... Do you honestly believe that?
Considering our entire society and civilzation is based off where the sea levels are now,
We have no control over what the sea level will be in a 100 years or 500 years....
Quote:
it will be very expensive to adapt....
More expensive than trying to cut emissions to 1990 levels which may actually cost 545 trillion by 2050?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
The reason that Canada's CO2 has increased and your's has decreased is simple....We have an evangelical conservative AGW denier as a leader, and you don't.
Our Chief Executive has to silence his fringe left wing environmentalists whack jobs, so he issues an Executive Order (because he can't work with Congress) that would force the shut down of many older coal plants (hurt jobs in coal states). In reality the change won't be significant
Proportion of energy from "green sources" has been steady eddie for many years now. Fossils fuel energy is cheap easy to convert, and necessary for life. Simple as that.
We've been switching to natural gas for years now as it is quite cheap.
Quote:
U.S. natural gas consumption since 1997 reflects shifting patterns. Total U.S. natural gas consumption rose 7% between 1997 and 2011, but this modest growth masks bigger changes in individual sectors. Electric power is now the largest natural gas-consuming sector and it shows perhaps the greatest sensitivity to price changes. The graphics below highlight key factors that influence natural gas consumption.
We have no control over what the sea level will be in a 100 years or 500 years....
100-500 years is a long term for humans so I'm not sure what technology will be available. However, it's a good idea now to move towards a more sustainable future.... regardless of climate change we will need to figure out a way to handle the billions of people stepping into a 21st century lifestyle.
Quote:
More expensive than trying to cut emissions to 1990 levels which may actually cost 545 trillion by 2050?
I don't believe that figure, let's see some math.
Quote:
Our Chief Executive has to silence his fringe left wing environmentalists whack jobs, so he issues an Executive Order (because he can't work with Congress) that would force the shut down of many older coal plants (hurt jobs in coal states). In reality the change won't be significant
We should be shutting down older coal power plants, especially when natural gas is so cheap. Perhaps it's no coincidence that these power plants started shutting down when natural gas started booming....
Quote:
Proportion of energy from "green sources" has been steady eddie for many years now. Fossils fuel energy is cheap easy to convert, and necessary for life. Simple as that.
Cheap and easy to convert but expensive dealing with the consequences. China is losing around 5% of their GDP due to pollution. Coal especially will continue to decline due to it's pollution while nat gas and solar will pick up the slack, along with nuclear.
Quote:
We've been switching to natural gas for years now as it is quite cheap.
And that's a good thing, it's been cheaper than the price of coal a few times.
Quote:
And thanks to fracking (regardless of this administration's attempt to derail it), the US has imported the least amount of energy in 3 decades
LOLz. They didn't attempt too hard.... considering the boom we are having.... [/quote]
No, the problem is that earth will continue to warm and the rate of warming will increase as greenhouse gases increase..
The problem is that you and your ilk do not KNOW that, all you have are faulty computer simulations and predictions. I suppose time will tell but so far your track record has not been great. None of your 97% consensus or computer models were able to predict the 16 year plus slowdown we are now experiencing DESPITE the same or more CO2 emissions.
Time for your camp to accept the possibility that maybe climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought and driven more by natural variability.
What's wrong with a carbon tax coupled with a reduction in spending in...oh say the military? What are these other failed green initiatives?
A carbon tax is a waste because it will simply move industry and thus CO2 over to other countries that care less about the environment. Bringing up military spending is nothing but a red herring, another diversion you are fond of using when the argument isn't going your way.
What are failed green initiatives? Where to start..
"These announcements come on the heels of the recent bankruptcy of the government-subsidized electric vehicle technology company ECOtality, which received $115 million in federal stimulus grants. Of course, that followed the multimillion dollar failures of solar energy companies Solyndra ($529 million) and Abound Solar ($70 million). With last week’s bankruptcy filing by government-backed hybrid car manufacturer Fisker Automotive, a failure which will cost taxpayers $139 million, the question must be asked: Why is the federal government funneling good taxpayer money to bad companies and failing technologies? Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on 'Renewable Energy'
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Where do you think the IPPCC gets their information from, if not peer reviewed scholarly articles?
...and then they summarize it an alarmist, misleading way
"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning." IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
.....so you have no timeline? How are we supposed to take action without a timeline or an idea?
The timeline is up to those who are making the alarmist claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Obviously you are more knowledgeable about my alleged camp than am I ironically....
Oh cut the snark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
How is political will not relevant? How are we supposed take extreme measures without political will? Like I said, you build up the unrealistic expectations only to tear them down.
Stop playing stupid. I said that political will was irrelevant to what we were talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
What does hypocrisy have to do anything with the validity of AGW or the OP you started? You're the one who started this thread about oceanic warming, what ever happened to that?
Actually PedroMartinez brought up this on 10/8...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
And?
Think about the latest climate summit. People from around the world jumped on to airplanes to fly across the globe instead of utilizing technology that works great (video conferencing) and reduce emissions. The people who are supposed to be working on the problem didn't take a very basic step to help because they essentially wanted to go to a nice hotel and get wined and dined and be important.
The AGW crowd is essentially a little dog yapping away at the reflection it sees in the mirror. It's accomplishing nothing but the noise it generates while thinking it's accomplishing something.
I responded that I agreed, it must of rubbed you the wrong way and we started going back and forth on it. I didn't derail anything. I responded to a post and then to your constant nonsense afterwards. What would you like to lie about next?
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 10-11-2014 at 06:38 PM..
The problem is that you and your ilk do not KNOW that, all you have are faulty computer simulations and predictions. I suppose time will tell but so far your track record has not been great. None of your 97% consensus or computer models were able to predict the 16 year plus slowdown we are now experiencing DESPITE the same or more CO2 emissions.
Time for your camp to accept the possibility that maybe climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought and driven more by natural variability.
What natural variability?.....No, we have evidence of the past from ice cores etc., but more importantly we have records of sea level, temperatures and melting ice from the last 134 years.....
Computer simulations deal with the future, but climate scientists have made many improvements to computer models over the years that have increased their accuracy and reliability. These advances have allowed scientists to show, unequivocally, that human activities are the major driver of global warming.
What natural variability?.....No, we have evidence of the past from ice cores etc., but more importantly we have records of sea level, temperatures and melting ice from the last 134 years.....
Computer simulations deal with the future, but climate scientists have made many improvements to computer models over the years that have increased their accuracy and reliability. These advances have allowed scientists to show, unequivocally, that human activities are the major driver of global warming.
They said the same thing in the past. Science isn't ever settled. They don't know anything "unequivocally".
This is dogma, not science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
