Global climate debate-the facts

Coal is not obsolete. Most of the world uses it for energy. It is immoral to limit its use in third world and developing countries. Just as it was immoral to increase the prices of food resulting from the discredited US ethanol policy. There is also no net cost to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Based on a climate sensitivity of 1 deg C the concentration can increase to ~ 3000 ppm before the net costs exceed the net benefits.

 

Keep living the lie...

 

The US oil imports consist of ~ 2% from Iraq. And you claim the US spent $2T on Iraq protecting oil assets there ?? That's ridiculous.

Keep avoiding the questions.

 

Garbage.

 

Factual data has never been accepted in this debate. Opinion and political BS are the norm.

Facts are irrelevant in the minds of many regardless of the science behind them.

 

You should try to follow the path then, your post in here are very non Buddhist.
Now on the subject at hand , AGW is an unproven hypothesis that has failed real world test so yes its qualified as a wild unproven hypothesis and making major policy based on it is hairbrained.

 

Coal is far from obsolete and the cleaner we can use it the better.

"Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040"

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/coal.cfm

 

You know, the thing that always annoys me about these conversations is the ubiquitousness of the argumentation from those who would hyperventilate about AGW.

First, if you're concerned, unplug. Save the energy. Don't drive a car. Stop heating and cooling your house and place of business. Contribute for a change instead of endless breathless fear mongering.

When Al Gore preaches about climate change, he does so having flown in a private jet, dragging an enormous entourage of toadies and security with him everywhere. He lives in residences that consume more energy than 10 average US families. President Obama dragged his entourage, the press corp, two battalions of military EVERYWHERE he went, and still had the gall to demand that others sacrifice.

And this is the liberal way. The insistent do as I say, don't worry about what I do mentality that demonstrates just how stupid they think the rest of us are. No heat for you this winter, but your exalted leaders won't suffer I can guarantee you.

 

Yes, the sun has not risen on the day when your advice on "following the path" would be considered valid, or even sane. But, beyond your insult...

The science says otherwise and, personally, I'd rather be found wrong than found dead.

 

And we have come full circle. "What if it's true? We better do something!" This is the road to ruin and responding to every dooms day cult is not an option. Yes AGW is a cult and Buddhism is a religion.

"Top Ten Organized Religions of the World, 2005
Religion Members Percentage
Christianity 2.1 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.5 billion 21
Hinduism 900 million 14
Buddhism 376 million 6

 

Cults ignore science. That would be you.
Religions demand belief in deities. That would not be Buddhism.

Did you know you can be a Christian AND a Buddhist?

"Is it a religion?

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself. ..."

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

 

Well, the good news is that the chance you'd "die" from climate change is foundationless. You might still be impacted by a local weather event, you might even be impacted by a weather pattern. But likely, you won't live long enough to be impacted by a change in the climate. More likely, you'll be impacted by your own choices. But don't lay those off on an ambiguous boogyman and your fear of it.

 

So, because I may not die, it should be ignored?

That seems a spectacularly stupid and short sighted concept.

 

It certainly reduces the priority of trying to upend the world economies on the off chance that you might.

What seems stupid is the idea that we understand enough about our impact to our environment yet to make an educated choice on how we interact with our environment to modify climate. Clearly, we have the ability to self govern and contain our pollution, and we should do so. What we don't know, however, is why climate changes in the first place, absent that, it seems gratuitous at best then to demand that we have some ability to do so.

What is spectacularly short sighted is the idea that robbing the atmosphere of life giving CO2. It's like saying we should reduce water vapor. It's stupid.

 

Cults do indeed ignore science and that would be the AGW cult that ignores all science and scientists like Judith Curry that don't goose step to the beat of the AGW dogma. They call them "deniers" which is a religious term not a scientific one and shun them like heretics, heathens and infidels.
Not to get tied up in the Buddhism thing but where exactly do you get the "Religions demand belief in deities" definition of what constitutes a religion? What defines a religion in reality is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think and that is why I can so easily call AGW a religion bordering on a cult. I myself find the following definition to make sense.

"It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn1.htm

 

Wow! That's like IKE refusing to build the interstate highway system because he wouldn't be around to drive all of it.

Short sighted and, over the long haul, stupid.

 

Collins does not deny. She believes, without proof, the scope and effect may not be correct.

You...Deny!

and

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

 

Actually, it would be like IKE not building the interstates on the off chance that a box tortoise might die while crossing one.

 

Your response is very argumentative and judgmental and not very Buddhist. Your using and wasting electricity arguing about AGW is not exactly practicing what you preach either. Seems like you should be somewhere seeking self enlightenment and not burning fossil fuels in the process. Just sayin.

 

Again, your knowledge of Buddhism is identical to your knowledge of climate change....Non-existent.

And you should be somewhere seeking spelling instruction if YOU'RE going to preach.

 

And for those who've convinced themselves that fully half of every dime we spend on the military is not about oil...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/trump-oil-isis-iraq/

and some oldies but goodies...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1222/Iraq-war-Predictions-made-and-results

 

No, you're proposing we do nothing about global warming because it won't kill you NOT that it won't kill something else. Ann incredibly stupid argument if you want humanity to survive its own stupidity.

 

I can put a fine point on this. At some point, absent our ability to flee this planet, the Sun will kill us all. Likely this won't be for millions if not billions of years in the future. Are you ready to start now? Save the sun. Only 3.6B years before it blows..... LMAO.....

 

Actually there are people considering that possibility. So...the clock is ticking.

 

To put a fine point on it...you trust science to tell you when the sun will kill us but....you can't trust science to tell you what is happening now. Typical.