Why I dislike the AGW cult

There are a lot of people who are not true believers of the military, schools, police, roads, environmental cleanup efforts, social security, medicare, and the list goes on and on. Should they get a free pass on supporting those efforts while at the same time accepting the benefits they provide? What do you think would happen if participation in these programs were voluntary?

So how do we get more people to voluntarily make the sacrifice so that others like you don't have to?

It's not for want of trying. I've reduced my carbon footprint. The interesting thing for me is that I reduced my carbon footprint not because I thought I was helping the environment (though that was one aspect), but because there was financial incentives in my case. I will be better off financially because of it 10 years from now. Unfortunately my efforts didn't have a perceptible impact on the global carbon budget so for that I'm sorry it wasn't enough for you.

 

Well, there’s a lot to be said about the audience that believes in the ghost from the sky being susceptible to the cult of science denial.

 

You get no pass what so ever. Being a hypocrite who doesn’t believe in universal healthcare but loves his Medicare
Is akin to not believing in AGW while still using the internet and a cell phone.
Bet you don’t understand how either work but you still trust it to provide you with reliable service. The same people who developed climate change awareness including the military, medical science and related fields like entomology, biology, computer science, math and a host of othe disciplines you all depend upon, still finds way into tomorrow’s medications, a prepared military and reliable consumer goods.
You’re sitting there depending upon a cure for diseases and conditions in the future which are changing dramatically because of AGW.
The science of medical cures is highly dependent upon knowing about AGW. I know a lot of guys like you....thinking hurts the brain so you depend upon Faux News to do it for you instead of thinking for yourself.

 

Oh, we’re calling this “faulty business practices” now ? Is that suppose to make those suffering a little less feel better ?

 

Being a true believer in AGW is nothing like any of your examples of things we pay taxes on. Those are tangibles while AGW is an unproven hypothesis. You can and indeed should live your life around your beliefs but you can not demand others do so.

 

Interesting comment from someone who justifies his opinion by claiming it's the concensus opinion.

 

Don't say "we", as I'm not dong it.

Who's suffering?

The people who didn't starve to death because of the increased food production that resulted from glyphosate use?

The people who didn't die of cancer due to the vastly more toxic herbicides that glyphosate replaced?

You conspiracy theory would kill a lot of people, if you could implement it, so it's not harmless.

 

I find this amusing. You do realise that there is only acceptance of the scientific evidence or crackpot deniers now don't you?

Shouldn't you be trying to convince those deniers to catch up?

 

An immediate and total ban of fossil fuel use, severe restrictions and limitations on logging, farming, and mining, for starters. CO2 is ever increasing, as long as it is being emitted into the atmosphere concentrations will continue to increase.

The AGW true believers are denying science when they promote modest reductions as a cure.

 

That isn't, unfortunately, credible.

 

Perhaps you meant not realistic rather than not credible. In which case I would agree, a total ban on fossil fuels will never be instituted nor would it ever be accepted by the people. We must resign ourselves to the inevitable and take @tecoyah advice, " buckle up for the ride".

 

What you propose would be an order of magnitude worse than simply adapting to the warming.

Modest reductions are the answer. First, we aren't trying to stop the warming. We just want it to be manageable. Second, natural processes already scrub about 50% of our excess emissions and bury it deep in the ground or in the ocean. Even if we only reduced emissions by 50% the CO2 concentration would begin leveling off.

 

We certainly can do more than that. It does mean that, given the days of marginalism is over, more radical change to capitalism is required.

 

This unfortunately, is inaccurate. It would take on the order of 20-50 years just to sequester the additional CO2 already in our atmosphere and about ten for the Methane. However we continue to emit additional CO2 and Methane release has begun with melting of permafrost and Ocean sediment which no one can reverse. Let alone trying to get diverse nations to comply with ANY limitations, especially since the biggest contributor (United States) now officially will not.

The game is Up folks....smoke 'em if 'ya Got 'em.

 

Actually that would be China who officially got many exemptions and exceptions in the so called agreement and they have double our output.

Country Fossil fuel CO2 emissions (kt) in 2016[10]
World 35,753,306
China 10,432,751
United States 5,011,687
India 2,533,638
Russia 1,661,899
Japan 1,239,592
Germany 775,752
International Shipping 656,369
Iran 642,560
South Korea 604,044
Canada 675,919
Saudi Arabia 517,079
Indonesia 530,036
International Aviation 523,454
Brazil 462,995
Mexico 441,413
Australia 414,989
South Africa 390,558
Turkey 368,123
United Kingdom 367,860
Italy

 

Using rough figures humans produce about 4 ppm/yr of CO2. The natural carbon cycle has a buffer that can accommodate an additional 2 ppm/yr of absorption in an attempt to reestablish a balance. This leaves about 2 ppm/yr that actually gets dispersed in the atmosphere. If we reduce our emissions by 2 ppm/yr the sequestration rate doesn't change (at least not by much and not right away). This would (eventually anyway) balance the emission and absorption budget once again. In other words, we don't have to cut emissions by 100% to stop the CO2 concentration increase. However, and this is important, the warming effect produced by carbon already lofted into the atmosphere would continue for another 30-50 years before the cooling force kicks in very slowly.

 

And therein lies the biggest problem. If we somehow managed to do as you say the Methane release continues and even gets worse, ice melts and ocean albedo continues to change unabated and water keeps on expanding.

 

Correct. One thing I'm not figuring in is certain feedback effects that might extend that 30-50 years of additional warming into a much longer period of warming. And yes, I agree, as the temperature goes up more methane and CO2 actually get released naturally. And of course, as more ice melts Earth's albedo will change.

 

Sounds like we are screwed. I wonder why so many true believers continue to have kids when their future looks so dark?

 

I wonder how non science believers can live in the hypocrisy of not accepting science in your politics but are completely dependent upon it for their survival. You can’t get through a day without being touched by science which is completely dependent upon real evidence, all the while, espousing your beliefs in the tooth fairy. Everyone would be screwed if we actually lived by the ignorance of your disbelief.

 

So how bout answering my question? If true believers think our future is do desperate why are they bringing children into this doomed world?

 

I don't think our future is desperate or doomed. Why should I not have kids?

 

Its a non factual assertion. The fact is, AGW is for real. As long as you deniers don’t accept the legitimate scientific evidence for AGW yet accept the nature of the same science used in every other facet of your lives because it keeps you alive, it is the height of hypocrisy .
It’s exactly the same as denying evolution yet accepting the science of antibiotics. You don’t know enough science to even conduct a worthwhile conversation about its veracity.

 

Then apparently you think the doomsday scenarios of the cult are wrong and I agree.

 

If you are so convinced it's fact certainly you wouldn't bring children into the world that is in so much trouble and certainly you wouldn't bring children into the world that will eat food, wear clothes, drive a car want a home of their own someday, and need to heat and cool it etc etc etc thereby exaserbating the problem you say we have. So maybe you don't think it's a big a problem as you claim or you do think it is and say screw it I'm having children anyway because I'm like a salmon and must reproduce even if it means I swim upstream and die. Or in this case your children will surly die as our planets destroyed by global warming.