Originally Posted by Reecemartin
Just because something may not be intuitive to you doesn't mean it's not true. The whole idea that people are being alarmist makes no sense when climate change will lead to more serious weather events, extinctions, ocean acidification and sea level rise- all things we are seeing and all day alarming.
The idea that we can't have a big impact on our planet is totally false. Consider the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, coupled with reduced carbon storage as forests are cut down and droughts and wildfires become common. The idea that we can seriously impact atmospheric CO2 isn't unreasonable, especially considering how minor a change would be needed to throw everything out of whack.
Germany's problems with renewables stem from a lack of storage something which has just recently reached utility scale for batteries.
In the end the picture that was posted makes the entire point, transitioning to a cleaner economy has no net negatives, so not doing so isnt justifiable even if you are a climate change denier (when we discuss climate change we are really discussing Anthropogenic climate change)
It has the net negative of requiring investment $$$. However, continuing to use fossil fuels needs investment $$$ into unconventional fossil fuels.
It doesn't totally cancel out, but the economic impact IS there.
Also, until very recently, renewables have been more costly than fossil fuels. The argument was that investing into renewables, would thus hurt the world's poor because the cheaper option was not used.
I personally think Germany's program was too pre-emptive. If they wanted to be a green leader, they should have kept the nuclear plants (most scientists I've heard agree that nuclear is one of the better solutions to the climate/energy crisis- it's the environmentalists that hate it), and poured money into R+D into green fuels and storage options-or built natural gas plants to cover for the troughs in production.
Now they are building more coal plants to cut down on energy costs and provide consistent power, like a dieter eating salad, then dripping it with copious amounts for cream sauce.
Originally Posted by Jebby
I find that very hard to believe. So in the 150 years of intense human industrial activity we've managed to stop an ice age from beginning?
Other scientists say that the climate would be more like it was around 1700, not having changed much since then.
I don't deny that the climate is changing. I just don't buy into the alarmist and exaggerated claims coming from the climate change lobby. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer with scientific backing on how much of climate change is man-made. Nor have I gotten a straight answer with any scientific backing on how much any of what the climate change lobby wants to impose on us through taxation and more government control will actually achieve.
Well, I've given you it.
And I don't buy into alarmism either, but at the same time, I believe it's a big long-term issue that we should be prudent in thinking and adopting to.
Considering ice ages and interglacials shift in the matter of hundreds of years. 300 years is a painfully tiny time scale in a geological scale. usually you talk about thousands, or hundreds of thousands.
Considering that's the timescale global warming is at, it's alarming to climate scientists, and sticks out like a sore thumb.
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
Yes, in recent years the critical mass of "green" technologies has made the climate change (business) paradigm profitable. But many holding on to the old carbon based technologies (e.g. coal and oil companies/conventional hydrocarbon combustion cars etc.) still may see climate change as a threat (to their survival).
I don't see why the oil companies couldn't adapt. Isn't that part of capitalism?
They can't sell H2 and biofuel? Too bad electric is taking off faster than celluose biofuel. But we'll always need the denser liquid fuels for planes, rockets, and ships.
Also, there's a massive green energy lobby as well- something everyone making this argument needs to take into account.
Originally Posted by Reecemartin
In general all these questions can be answered. I think this whole ideology of "without absolute certainty we cannot make a decision" is very dangerous. When all the data points to humans having a major impact on creating the problem of climate change there isnt much debate to be had (though dont tell US Republicans this). And since we created this problem it naturally follows that we can fix it.
Even if the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus isnt adequately convincing, what skim of your back is it to at least make small adjustments and include minor measures to care for such eventualities?
People who deny climate change argue the investment in green energy is better spent elsewhere.
A little late when we've already spent so much...
And this is coming from someone who argues that the far-left cares way too much about climate change.
Originally Posted by Jebby
I'm not asking to predict an exact day, I know that's impossible which is why I never take the "in 25 years x will happen" alarmist BS spun by the climate change lobby.
All I'm asking is if human activity is the cause of climate change, how much of it does it cause? 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?
What would the weather be like if humans didn't exist? We know that climate changes in cycles, but how much would it have changed without humans?
If we actually implement the most aggressive actions to mitigate climate change, how much will it achieve? Will it reduce effects by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?
No climate change proponent can answer any of those questions.
The spinners are mostly the product of yellow Journalism. It's the same reason people in the 70s made alarmist statements about Global Cooling- the global 'warm period' would be ending, if you didn't account for anthropomorphic CO2.
We've delayed it quite a bit, so at least we won't worry about freezing to death.
How much are humans impacting climate change? Again, it's the wrong question. No one can give an exact number.
Again, back to the gaining weight analogy- how much is that extra dessert impacting your weight? Your metabolism varies over time. So making an exact number is dumb.
I honestly think we have bigger near-term issues than global warming, and that we should slap a carbon tax and let the free market handle things for the most part, it's been doing a pretty good job of handling the issue of expensive renewables (the main problem is now invariability, not cost- Wind power is now cheaper than Coal and Natural Gas).
Which is something that can and probably will be solved by smart electric cars, home fuel cells/batteries, hydroelectric pumping power plants (essentially giant water batteries), and backup fossil fuel power plants.
The economics are quickly starting to play out, and we should have a massive shift from the current Coal> Gas Conversion the world is going though due to cheap gas, to Gas+Oil> Renewables in the relatively near future (2030-40?)
I honestly wonder if LNG proponents take that into account. We could very well end up with a bunch of infrastructure that only is used for a few years, before demand shrivels up, and they'll have to start being shut down.
At least the taxpayer isn't paying for it. But it really is a shame. One day, Deltaport Terminal 3 will just be made on top of the Westshore Terminal, because no one will use coal for energy, except the poorest nations.
The most aggressive policies?
The most aggressive policy would be shutting down industrial production entirely, killing off 6 Billion people, and going back to per-industrial farming.
It would still not stop global warming, because the CO2 and CH4 will hang around for centuries, and the CH4 from permafrost marshes will continue to be released.
However, that would keep up below 3 Degrees climate change.
I remember playing Fate of the World
and purposefully destroying the Global economy to reduce carbon emissions to get the "Below 3 Degrees Achievement". Poor mortals