Climate Change Question

If we all say to climate change advocates, "Ok. You win. We are on board with whatever you want to do about it." If you want more taxes on fuel, carbon, whatever, fine. If you want to invest trillions in green energy, fine. Whatever you want, you got it. Ban cars, breathing... ANYTHING.

Once you get everything you want, and it has had time to be observed...

Will climate change stop? Will it slow down? What will happen? Be specific, the entire economy is at stake. You are asking a lot, please be specific - ie. how many storms per year will there be? What will be the average temp? Will temps go up or down?

 

If it does, they were right all along. If it doesn't, it's because we didn't put our faith in their wisdom soon enough.

See how easy that was?

 

Look at what happened with the Ozone Hole. The US consumers got hammered and continues to get hammered.

And the Ozone Hole hasn't changed - either in coverage or concentration - ever since.

Where does the consumer go to get his/her trillions back?

 

Yea but the ozone hole was filled with the CO2s.
See global warming saved us from the ozone hole.

 

Why not let these folks answer some of your questions; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-age-of-warming/

 

I wonder what is the carbon footprint of Al Gore traveling the world selling Carbon Credits?
I wonder if he can pay for his carbon credits with hypocrisy? Just think this was the progressive savior at one time.

 

How did consumers get hammered?

The ozone was deteriorating, because of in major part, human use of CFC's.. We made a global commitment cut out the CFC's as a reform to address this problem and lo and behold, it worked! That's why the ozone stopped deteriorating like that.

 

Oh, this should be a good thread.

 

It's impossible to predict what will happen in the future; any course we take will still be uncertain. Nothing we do will just stop the climate changing. It always changes. Nothing we do can stop it getting warmer, but we could lessen the effects, prolong it, buy time so that the disruption caused won't be as bad, etc. Maybe.

But we work towards that end and still sort out the economy. People think there's a false dichotomy where it's like we have to sacrifice our economy to do something about climate change. The economy is crashing anyway, change that has nothing to do with the climate needs to save the economy.

 

There is a particular insanity that goes along with the green revolution.

*the conversion of tropical forests to oil palm monoculture for “biodiesel”,

*the clearcutting of temperate forests for “renewable biomass” to burn in powerplants halfway around the world,

*the conversion of millions of acres of US Conservation Reserve Program habitat to automotive fuel ethanol production,

*the burying of thousands and thousands of acres of sensitive marine, prairie and desert habitats beneath high-impact, low-productivity wind and solar powerplant eyesores that have the side “benefit” of chopping birds and bats out of the air or cooking them alive as they fly by

 

Plan A to fix the climate
Plan trees in all the land Al Gore owns all over the world.
Let the trees absorb the carbon.
Than use the fuel Gore uses to travel all over the world selling carbon credits and speeches about his carbon footprint. Oops I mean ours. Take the fuel and load the trees into a rocket and lunch them into space. Problem fixed and we have Gore to thank for it.

 

The Fox Network, currently on many stations is running a program "The Cosmos", think a series of 10, now on number two. They indicate that if a large comet had not hit earth 65M years ago, changing the climate in many ways, dinosaurs could well still dominate the earth and mankind would have never evolved.

With this in mind, not mentioning other climate changes over earths 4.5B years, weather patterns have changed for many reasons, none of which humans or anything other than natural causes could have changed. The Solar System, meaning our sun, the electromagnet field (which is way over due to change (north pole to south pole), our planet-Solar System, and Universe travels through space have more to do with changes our environment endures, regardless of mankind. So NO, change will not stop.

Keep in mind dinosaurs lived on this planet 100M years, primitive mankind to Homo Sapiens maybe 100 thousand years (so far) and we learned how to reason, no more than 6,000 years. Even the science we're taught today is far different than 100 years ago. Our way of live, the social structure and economy also has and will continue to change, which has nothing to climate. People living in Alaska and folks living along the equator have evolved with the rest of us and I'd suggest will last as long as we act with reason, opposed to emotions.

There are scientist, weather experts, that feel we have been heading for another ice age (probably minor) possible anywhere from 10 thousand years to a few million, these little 1-2F degree up/down swings, from lowers part of that natural cycle. It's very hard to predict storms or what you call storms. Remember in 1789, the founding of the US there were less 4 million, today 313 million, 78 times that 4 million and all these additional can report or actually be affected by them.

 

You stand in line behind the people that want their money back for all the other things that ridiculous amounts of money have been spent on? I'm still waiting to get my money back for the Cold War. Now there was an expensive, dubious cause.

 

Taxcutter says:
I posted a fairly comprehensive description of how the consumer got hammered. The long and short of it was that the consumer was obliged to get rid of reliable and efficient R-12 and replace it with R-134a which costs 10 times as much. The consumer had to get rid of his perfectly good R-12 air conditioning and refrigeration equipment and pay a higher price for replacement equipment. R-134a stuff is 11% less energy efficient than the R-12 that the Ozone Hole thing rammed down the consumers' throats, so the portion of electric power consumption and motor fuel than went into refrigeration and air conditioning. Hence higher energy bills

We lost Halon 1301 which was the best fire extinguishing agent ever to come on the market. Many fires did more damage than they would have before because the substitutes (which are generally more expensive) don't put the fire out as quickly.

A lot of the foam products industry went offshore because R-12 was a safe and non-reactive lofting agent. Its replacement - hexane - is both highly flammable and very reactive. The change from R-12 to hexane as a lofting agent made the once-bulletproof insulating foam on the Space Shuttle into a weak and friable mess. A piece of that foam broke off and damaged the refractory tiles on one of the Shuttles and caused its loss.

To add insult to injury, the Chinese, Indians, and Indonesians are still making R-12.

As to it stopping the deterioration, between 1977 when the "Ozone Hole" was discovered and in 1990 when the US promulgated 40 CFR 82 to implement the Montreal Protocol, neither the coverage nor the concentration of the "Ozone Hole" changed at all.

Further SINCE the promulgation of 40 CFR 82, the Ozone Hole has not improved. The latest data shows it with the same coverage and the same ozone concentration - down to the last Dobson unit.

All the US consumer's sacrifice was for nothing.

Nobody knows what the Ozone Hole was doing prior to 1977 - deteriorating, healing itself, or doing nothing. But we do know its done nothing since so your claim the Ozone Hole stopped deteriorating is completely false.

Why do you post lies? Imitating Hussein Obama, maybe?

 

Unfortunately we are wery close to the point of no return, if not already there, and whatever actions we do take at this point maybe futile !!!!.But I guess I can adopt the attitude of my conservative climate change denying friends and just say Hoorey for me and to hell with you brother the place will last until I'm gone so I don't give a chitt.

 

Is Al Gore a climatologist? Does he have any qualifications in climate-related disciplines? No? Then why bring him up?

 

Yes, that is the political narrative of CAGW. Nothing of the fear mongering needs to be proven in such a complex system because that would take too long so belief is more important.

 

Can you expand on this? Can you show me some evidence that the earth will be unlivable in the next 50 years or so? So far, all of the climate change models created by what were told are the experts in this field, have been wrong. Can you show me a model that backs up what you claim, and then explain to me why that model is reliable?

 

If you can dispute this evidence http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-age-of-warming/, I'd like to see it. These folks are the experts in the field too. Are they wrong? By the way, these experts in the field you are referring to, "YOU WERE TOLD", where is their proof? Do they have links that prove climate change is not happening by these climate change models you are talking about? And if you were the original one asking the questions in your OP, how come all of a sudden you have the answers by picking sides with your own experts. If you already are going by your own set of expert testimony through climate change models that you have not shown us, why ask us in your OP as if you do not know? Now, some how you do. Go figure!

 

I hate to break it to you, but while the GROWTH of CFC usage dropped significantly, the total number has still risen as opposed to decreased. If CFC's are what caused the ozone hole, and CFC total output has not decreased and in fact increased just at a slower rate, one cannot logically conclude that the slowdown in CFC growth has stopped the deterioration of the ozone hole.

 

No, your wallet will just be lighter while they spend your money on everything BUT climate change.

 

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. However my gripe is that, in the light of what we know about Mr.Gore's scientific 'credentials', why would the right even consider that anyone would take him seriously? And yet they keep bringing him up. I could understand it if they were to challenge a genuine climatologist, but I'm guessing that they don't have enough scientific knowledge themselves to be able to challenge scientific arguments. So they wheel out Mr.Gore again and again...
He emphatically does not speak for me or, I'm guessing, anyone else who takes the subject of anthropogenic climate change seriously.