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.
I know it comes off as sensationalist. I usually post threads like this because it interesting to see the talks between deniers and believers.
Though I don’t thing sensationalizing things is good as it gets people into not taking a matter seriously. Someone posted a comment that I agreed with:
“Interesting article
“A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen.”
“The impacts of climate change are more likely to be intermittent, slow and gradual.”
So I guess the challenge is to convince people that we need to act even though disaster may not be imminent.”
Followed by: “It's kind of a catch-22. Citing the pure data doesn't sound like enough of a motivation for the average layperson ("If we don't act now, temperatures will rise by a degree a decade from now!"), while going into speculation risks backfiring if it doesn't happen as predicted ("Twenty years ago, they said we'd all be underwater by now!").”
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
The 18 months was Prince Charles speaking about the importance of critical UN meetings that are due to take place between now and the end of 2020.
It's not literally 18 months, it's just the importance some commentators are placing on climate change meetings for our future, and more especially the UN meetings over the nxt 18 months.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-28-2019 at 03:32 AM..
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.
It's a hoax, folks.
I think the main reason is because many people don't want change..
Los Angeles is a perfect example. L.A. would benefit from more rail and more density as more people would live closer to their job and drive less thus causing less emissions.
People DO vote for L.A. to change it's ways. I have. I support more public transit as many others do.
Older generations don't want that. They still see L.A. as a giant suburb and don't want it to change because we're changing the character of the neighborhoods. And it's complicated because I see gentrification as a double edged sword. But I do see the benefit in changing how L.A. operates as a city. The same people who vote to keep it the same are the same that complain about the problems caused by L.A. staying the same.
So this is what's happening. People do want these changes that you suggest but greed often gets in the way. Your right, but you don't see that the refusal to change pushes back because old money doesn't wanna move to the side or retire..
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.
It's a hoax, folks.
...................and I was worried that we might result to walking around in clothes made out of corn husks and shoes made out of banana skins foraging for our meals.....................shucks...........
The urgency is due to the fact that for a long time climate change scientists were looking at changes in average temperatures. It's only been in the last 5-10 years that the capacity to project extreme events has been built into climate models. It's no accident that this coincides with their actual occurrence.
Why aren’t alarmist talking about population control?
NOTHING would make more of a difference in CO2, ozone, pollutants, etc than reducing human populations......
Why aren’t alarmist talking about population control?
NOTHING would make more of a difference in CO2, ozone, pollutants, etc than reducing human populations......
Why arent people talking about the huge swing in the magnetic poles?
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.
It's a hoax, folks.
Correct. When the banks stop lending to people building on the coast, and the insurance companies stop insuring - then I'll start to believe it a bit more. Of course both of these industries could always go back to the feds for a 'bailout' should the coasts eventually be underwater anyway, so who knows.
If anthropogenic climate change wasn't a hoax, we might see common sense initiatives like:
1) 80% transition to electric traction rail in place of long haul diesel trucking, urban and suburban mass transit. Not only will it save 90-95% in fuel, allow for energy recovery braking, but reduce petroleum consumption below domestic production.
2) Superinsulation, energy conservation, resilient and frugal housing. Housing consumes a substantial amount of resources to build, repair, and maintain. Ditto, for dealing with natural disasters.
3) Securing coastlines and recovering seafloor not unlike the Netherlands, with extensive levees and flood protection.
Why aren't the ALARMISTS seeking these common sense solutions?
Are the rich selling off their waterfront property?
No-o-o-o.
Alarmists want money and power by taxing air and sequestering carbon (!) despite the fact that the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and plants need carbon dioxide to live.
It's a hoax, folks.
You're doing well thinking about common sense initiatives. Why toss that out the window because ALARMISTS and rich people don't display common sense? Why allow them to control your thinking on the topic?
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.
