Global climate debate-the facts

Yeah, here's the thing o this "minor"...

If I'm wrong we improve the environment, lower pollution, create jobs, lower our military outlays, lower health care cost among a myriad of benefits.

If you're wrong we all die.

It really is that simple.

Buddhism is not a religion. It doesn't require you to believe ANYTHING and, in fact, encourages disbelief in everything, even Buddhism. There is a core philosophy which, if you want to take the 3 the 3 the 4 and the 8 and boil them down to a single statement is "be good for goodness sake."

- - - Updated - - -

Only one answer. The rest are responses in the form of questions which he, of course, ignored.

 

That's approximately the same. Are you suggesting that the lower rate in the 70's explains the cooling ?? How then to explain the warming in the 30's and 40's ??

- - - Updated - - -

Those costs are considered in the economic analyses which Dr. Tol summarized in his papers. Again if you are not interested in the truth there is nothing I can do about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at the archived Time magazine covers for that time period.

 

The negative effects of gov subsidized wind and solar are higher energy costs which are regressive with respect to low income households.

 

Move the goal posts all you like. The link shows the data and explains the impact.

- - - Updated - - -

Today. How about 10-20-30 years from now. How much will an hour of sunshine cost 50 years from now? How about a 15 mph breeze?

Try thinking beyond the current quarter. That's TrumpCo thinking.

 

How do you explain the cooling, warming, and stable temperatures with increasing CO2 concentration ??

How long do solar panels and wind turbines last ??

 

Time magazine definitely ran covers and articles predicting a coming ice age. Those covers are easy to find. But ....

What did actual scientists say at the time?

You won't answer, so I'll answer for you ...

Global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to alarmist media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

BTW ... there was wrong media hype of a coming ice age in 2005 as well ( a result of the shut-down of the Atlantic ocean circulation system). Both media hype events had nothing to do with science.

 

How do you explain traffic jams at midnight? Maybe there's more factors than just the time of day?

http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/

 

CO2 is not a pollutant. Life would not be possible without CO2 in the atmosphere. The important consideration is the effect of the CO2 increase on the temperature and the net effect of this temperature increase on the well being of humans. Analysis of existing data shows that the climate sensitivity of CO2 to be ~ 1 deg C. IPCC A1B CO2 scenario shows that the CO2 concentration will double from 380 to 760 ppm in the 21st century. Economic analysis shows that the benefits are net positive for the increased on 3 deg C from the current levels. The preceding shows that there will be net benefits to the increasing CO2 concentration for the next 200 - 300 years.

The main benefits as I've indicated are increased growing season, increased arable land, and increased plant growth rates. And yes, increasing temperature frees up water (ice) for use in irrigation.

Yes, more people die from cold related illness than heat.

There is absolutely no evidence nor predictions that droughts, floods, cyclones, or any other catastrophic climate variation will increase in frequency. Even the IPCC states that. There is prediction of greater cyclone intensity but that has not been observed.

The US has vast fossil fuel assets. The US military is not spending any significant amounts protecting oil assets around the world.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Mining companies are regulated to protect the environment. The last major incident was actually the result of the EPA.
Sea level is rising at a rate of 1 ft per century. Any costs associated with that will be spread across the next 100 years.

 

Solar panels and wind turbines have lifetimes of 25 years. That's 4 times per century.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the cooling did indeed occur.

 

Totally called it .. you didn't answer.

Notice the pivot though ... you went from "The ice age was coming" to "cooling did occur" as if the difference in those two statements is negligible. You crack me up dude.

 

Who claimed there was an ice age coming ??

 

I called my doctor and said I'm concerned about climate change. He said I should shut the hell up and get a life. I took his advice and now my stress level is close to zero and I feel better than I've felt in years.

.

 

You just convinced me. What a convincing argument. We need more debate champions like you.

 

You seem to me like the type who would be in denial if global temps were going down instead of up. Which ever way they go it's going to be a learning experience.

 

I shall end you with this...

"The US military is not spending any significant amounts protecting oil assets around the world."

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, West Africa, and the list goes on....

That you make this claim demonstrate your inability to rationally understand the science or the world around you.

 

How much do you claim we are spending annually ??

 

You can throw out any wild hypothesis and say what if it's true so we better respond to it. That would lead to absolute chaos and society running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

On the side issue of Buddhism I myself believe in much of its basic philosophy but it is indeed a religion and has not been immune to religious wars. Your concept of Buddhism may be a bit romanticized. Not really the place for this discussion but I'm very interested in religions and philosophy so I couldn't resist.

"Buddhism and violence

But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters
In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb.
Sawaki Kodo
In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtml

 

A perfect example would be still calling coal dirty and polluting even if the emissions from it could be scrubbed of everything except C02

 

They don't take the mercury out of the ash.

 

I said "if" and if they did you'd still call it pollution based solely on C02. I say we work on getting everything out except C02 and call it clean energy.

 

The levels of mercury are well within guidelines. The EPA uses PM2.5 criteria based on junk science to shut down coal plants. They claim that PM2.5 kills people at comparable rates to cancer which causes the death of ~ 25% of the people in the US that die every year. And yet cannot give any names ?? They also refuse to release the data from the studies (Harvard Six City and Pope) which have been used to justify their standards.

Source: "Scare Pollution and How to Fix the EPA" - Milloy - 2015

 

The hypothesis is not wild. It is grounded in scientific evidence and history. We even have a neighbor to show us our potential fate. Stopping a boulder from rolling down a mountain is much easier if you stop it BEFORE it starts rolling.

Buddhists are not perfect. But, in your "research" did you find any wars fought to force Buddhist beliefs on any group? Was Hitler trying to spread Christianity? Is the US trying to spread Christianity in the Middle East?

But, Buddhism is not a religion. There is no belief required in any "god" to be a practicing Buddhist. All that is required to be a Buddhist is to try to follow the path.

 

Since 2003 we've spent over 2 trillion dollars in Iraq. That's an average of $154B per year.

Let's start with that.

 

If you could "clean" coal you would make an already obsolete fuel even more expensive. And yes, CO2 needs to be reduced.

 

Those expenditures had nothing to do with protecting oil assets. Next.