• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Climate Change(d)?

Is “Sean Casten” one of your climate science ‘experts’? Like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg?

He’s a cultist. A cultist that is in government.
so not a climate expert. No need to listen to his views on climate change then.
Huh? The point isn’t that he’s not a “climate expert” it is that this cultist, and many others like him are in government and have their hands on the levers dictating dumb religious diktat about what type of stove you can have in your kitchen or banning ICE vehicles etc. So yeah, you should pay attention to what these religious fundamentalists say.
 
In the matter of "Is climate change a problem, yes or no?", there are extremists on both sides.

Finding an idiot who said fifteen years ago "We are all unavoidably doomed within a decade", is not, in fact, a good reason to think that the answer is "no".

Idiots who get to the right answer for the wrong reasons, or who exaggerate the size of the problem, are easy to find. But their existence in no way justifies the conclusion that there's no problem.

If you want to know whether there is a problem, and if so, how serious it is, you need to ignore the enthusiasts and extremists on both sides, and listen to the experts - the people who are qualified to have a useful opinion.

Those people are saying that there is a problem, and that it is potentially serious, but can be mitigated if we act to keep atmospheric CO2 levels sufficiently low.

How we can achieve that mitigation is a bigger problem, because it rapidly becomes political - there are lots of things that can be done, but all require people to accept changes that they don't like.

IMO, any "grassroots" effort is doomed, because real people are selfish arseholes. If we decide that everyone should use less energy on an individual basis, then most people won't comply without draconian enforcement; And most people don't want draconian enforcement to be enacted.

The solutions need, like the source of the problem, to be applied not to the myriad consumers, but to the much smaller number of fossil energy producers.

We need to make extracting (and then burning) coal, oil and gas uneconomical. Or to make the extractors pay to recover from the atmosphere any CO2 put into it from their products.

Set a carbon tax at source (import dock, mine, or wellhead) equal to the cost of sequestering CO2, and use the revenue thus raised for that specific purpose.

This would lead to an actual "net zero" emissions regime, with no technology specifically supported nor suppressed. If the cheapest way to make electricity, or to power ships, cars, or aircraft, under such a regime is the status quo of burning fossil fuels, than that's no problem; Every tonne of CO2 produced will fund the sequestration of a tonne of CO2.

Everything will be more expensive, of course. Because we will no longer be able to pretend that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere costs nothing. It does have a cost, and that cost is easy to determine (it's the cost of getting it back out of the atmosphere again).

Such a scheme incentivises innovation in carbon neutral power systems, and in carbon sequestration schemes - if a coal miner can come up with a cheaper way to sequester CO2, he can slash his tax bill; And if someone wants to generate carbon free nuclear power in competition with a carbon spewing coal power plant, that person gets a level playing field, where his competitor isn't allowed to externalize the cost of waste management.

This idea appeals to neither group of extremists. The coal, oil, and gas lobby wants to maintain its unfair advantage of having free waste disposal; And the neo-luddites don't want people to be allowed to use any amount of energy they are prepared to pay for.

A pox on both their houses. Civilisation requires technology and lots of energy use in order to flourish. But nobody is entitled to piss in the swimming pool without paying to clean up their mess.

ICE vehicles need not be banned. As long as the cost of gasoline includes the cost of recovering the CO2 it generates, the choice of whether to use gasoline or electricity or pedal power or whatever can (and should) be left up to the individual consumer.
 
I'm' very pessimistic about the future.
tRump is setting things back a least four years.
Next admin will take years to get back on track.
Nothing will happen any time soon.
Best to start preparing for the worst case.
And go all in on nuclear!
But that will not happen in the USA unless there are big Fed loan guaranties.
I am not fucked, because I am old.
My grandnieces and grandnephews will be.
 
I don't think that we are prepared for dealing with things that have happened in historical times.

How would we cope with another 536ad event, for instance, a dark sky, a sun that looks like the moon for a year or more, growing seasons compromised followed by a mini ice age.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that are prepared for dealing with things that have happened in historical times.

How would we cope with another 536ad event, for instance, a dark sky, a sun that looks like the moon for a year or more, growing seasons compromised followed by a mini ice age.
As in all of history in such a situations population shrinks. Probably large scale war over resources, maybe nuclear.

Economic chaos.
 
I don't think that are prepared for dealing with things that have happened in historical times.

How would we cope with another 536ad event, for instance, a dark sky, a sun that looks like the moon for a year or more, growing seasons compromised followed by a mini ice age.
As in all of history in such a situations population shrinks. Probably large scale war over resources, maybe nuclear.

Economic chaos.
Yeah you just have to view it as the earth periodically shaking off dangerous parasites like humans. Forests, wetlands and virtually every other habitat on the planet would be teeming with diversity in the aftermath of humans’ drastic decline.
 
Yeah you just have to view it as the earth periodically shaking off dangerous parasites like humans.
Well, that's how you have to view it if you are a planet.

If you are a human, such a view would be absurd. As a human, you can choose to not be a dangerous parasite.

Humans are nothing if not adaptable. We can change, and if our lives are at risk, the survivors likely will change. If only because that is what will define them as survivors.
 
I don't think that are prepared for dealing with things that have happened in historical times.

How would we cope with another 536ad event, for instance, a dark sky, a sun that looks like the moon for a year or more, growing seasons compromised followed by a mini ice age.
As in all of history in such a situations population shrinks. Probably large scale war over resources, maybe nuclear.

Economic chaos.
But the more interconnected the population is the more fragile the system. The crashes of old would likely be extinction events now.
 
If you are a human, such a view would be absurd.
Why?
What if I happen to LIKE habitats teeming with diversity?
( I know it might take hundreds of thousands of years to realize, so this is all hypothetical.)
 
Russia vs Ukraine
Thailand vs Cambodia
North vs South Korea
China arbitrarily redrawing maritime boundaries, shots fired with the PI over fishing grounds
India vs Pakistan
Iran vs Saudi Arabia
Israel acting like it is 2000 years ago
Trump threatening Greenland and Panama with force
Trump threatening the world economy


And some

Same old same old. Technology has advanced but it is the same old stuff.

In the 17th or 18th century there was a cold summer with crop failures in North Ameri8ca and Europe. It was traced to a volcanic eruption and particles in upper atmosphere. A mini 'nuclear winter'.

Volcanic eruptions in the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly the Laki eruption in 1783 and the Tambora eruption in 1815, had significant impacts on global temperatures, leading to colder winters and even what is known as a "year without a summer". The Laki eruption caused a large-scale volcanic winter in Europe due to the release of sulfur dioxide, while the Tambora eruption's impact was even more pronounced, leading to widespread crop failures and famine in 1816.



The post WWII order created by Europe and North America that provided global trade stability is fading.

A large scale natural event could bring it all down.

It is happening in slow motion with climate change.

A good example is the collapse of the Mayan empire. It was a high functioning civilization with what we call today suburbs. An economy and plentyy of good food.

Problems began with a long drought. At the end it was a very fast collapse. Skeletons found in streetst and buildings.
 
If you are a human, such a view would be absurd.
Why?
What if I happen to LIKE habitats teeming with diversity?
What if you do? If you're a human, you won't get to experience them, if removing humans is the way to get them.

Or are you just in favour of "the earth periodically shaking off dangerous parasites like [other] humans."?
 
If you're a human, you won't get to experience them, if removing humans is the way to get them.
It’s a mighty slow way, granted. But time wounds all heels.
Anyhow I like to imagine that on a macro scale, places of unimaginable diversity pervade the universe.
 
I don't think that we are heading for an extinction event, more likely a reduced population and way of life that's far removed from our current 'business as usual' lifestyles.
 
I don't think that we are heading for an extinction event,
We’re not “heading to” one, we are experiencing one. This is the earth’s sixth major extinction event. Biologists estimate that 35%of animals and plants could become extinct in the wild by 2050.
more likely a reduced population
Inevitable if our current course is maintained without great reliance on nuclear energy.
and way of life that's far removed from our current 'business as usual' lifestyles.
Also inevitable. Current life in the US is far removed from what it was 75 years ago, which was far removed from 150 years ago.
50 more years will make it unrecognizable - again.
 
Is “Sean Casten” one of your climate science ‘experts’? Like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg?

He’s a cultist. A cultist that is in government.
so not a climate expert. No need to listen to his views on climate change then.
Huh? The point isn’t that he’s not a “climate expert” it is that this cultist, and many others like him are in government and have their hands on the levers dictating dumb religious diktat about what type of stove you can have in your kitchen or banning ICE vehicles etc. So yeah, you should pay attention to what these religious fundamentalists say.
But you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, then. I have already agreed with you that there are climate extremists who say stupid things. But you are listening to them and then denying the actual science, which is what the true experts are reporting.
 
Is “Sean Casten” one of your climate science ‘experts’? Like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg?

He’s a cultist. A cultist that is in government.
so not a climate expert. No need to listen to his views on climate change then.
Huh? The point isn’t that he’s not a “climate expert” it is that this cultist, and many others like him are in government and have their hands on the levers dictating dumb religious diktat about what type of stove you can have in your kitchen or banning ICE vehicles etc. So yeah, you should pay attention to what these religious fundamentalists say.
But you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, then. I have already agreed with you that there are climate extremists who say stupid things. But you are listening to them

Only in the context of wtf dumb policies their religious zealotry spawns. They are talking crap but the ramifications of what they believe and what they do is felt.

and then denying the actual science, which is what the true experts are reporting.

No I don't. If I were denying actual science I would be just like Casten. (or Gore, Kerry, Milliband, Teh Gruaniad or whoever)
 
Last edited:
I don't think that we are prepared for dealing with things that have happened in historical times.

How would we cope with another 536ad event, for instance, a dark sky, a sun that looks like the moon for a year or more, growing seasons compromised followed by a mini ice age.
Our recent pandemic was child's play compared to some of the historical plagues. 90% losses from an epidemic used to be something that happened sometimes, and there's reason to assume that events of similar virulence couldn't happen again. But look at how we responded to such a relatively mild challenge? Entire governments toppled, social orders disrupted. We really should think twice about extending the range of the tropics...
 
Back
Top Bottom