@jeffhergert: Is there something you want to tell me? In some cases my English understandung is not good enough for finenesses or irony.
Or was it just for a good laugh?Regards, Volker
Thanks Jeff. You've summed up this thread pretty well.
schlimm Euclid the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong. Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right. They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong. Euclid's response is a textbook example of how ludicrous a revisionist history can be when it is written by someone who knows nothing (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
Euclid the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right. They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid's response is a textbook example of how ludicrous a revisionist history can be when it is written by someone who knows nothing (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
VOLKER LANDWEHR @jeffhergert: Is there something you want to tell me? In some cases my English understandung is not good enough for finenesses or irony. Or was it just for a good laugh?Regards, Volker
No, nothing directly or only for you. I just used your post because it was the handiest one that was appropriate for the comic's theme.
Jeff
There's an old aphorism that might have some bearing on this long, tedious, contentious, unqualified, unproductive, circuitous, and now largely redundant conversation:
"There's nothing new under the Sun."
BLS53That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
Most of the coal shipped to Texas appears to be in cars owned by the big electric power generators.
According to Railroad Performance Measures, July 29, 2016 through July 21, 2017, more than 50 percent of all the cars-on-line for U.S. railroads were privately owned. The average percentages for the perriod, calculated on end of quarter numbers, were BNSF 63, CN 62, CSX 62, KCS 56, NS 57, UP 68, and Other 71.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
ruderunnerSorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
Amen to that.
Norm
jeffhergertNo, nothing directly or only for you. I just used your post because it was the handiest one that was appropriate for the comic's theme.
It is a nice comic, and contains the necessary exaggerations and factoids to make it funny. Does it fit? I'm not sure.
I always thought discussions are used to exchange arguments. You try to convince your dialog partner of your own opinions.
With global warming it doesn's seem to work. But one keeps trying, and when one reads what looks like a false argument, you try to show the error.
And then there are arguments like: must be wrong because it is a leftist agenda, is not proven (there might never be 100% proof), the "believer" don't allow so called "deniers" in the discussion, academics vs. less educated people etc.
If we won't allow deniers in the discussion why discuss with them here?
Some of the above mentioned "arguments" are called thought-terminating cliché in Germany.
Presumably we have a different discussion culture in Germany and it is for sure much less guided by political bias that might blind people for evidence and/or facts.
One last comment: A today published representative survey showed that for 71% of the eligibler voter in Germany climate change is the greatest concern.Regards, Volker
https://archive.org/stream/knownothingparty43shen#page/55/mode/2up
Sorry, Rude, but I said no such thing. Most folks with an open mind can see through your games.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Narcissists can never accept fault for their failed actions. Sound familiar?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Narcissists can never accept fault for their failed actions. Sound familiar?
Sounds rather Presidential to me.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
schlimm ruderunner Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next? Sorry, Rude, but I said no such thing. Most folks with an open mind can see through your games.
ruderunner Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
Then care to explain what your quoted post issupposed to mean? I have an open mind and I'm not playing games.
schlimmOK. I was referring stricktly to Euclid's several posts on spherical earth. It seemed to me (and possibly others) he had the history wrong (bad revisionist history). I threw in the No Nothing Party bit as a poor inside joke. It was a nativist party (see Wanswheel's post) in the mid 19th century. See CSSHegewisch's post for the connection to current politics. It was rather convoluted.
WikipediaThe Native American Party, renamed the American Party 1855 and commonly known as the "Know Nothing" movement, was an American Nativist political party that operated nationally in the mid-1850s. It was an anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant movement, generally taking the form of a secret society. Adherents to the movement were to reply "I know nothing" when asked about its specifics by outsiders, thus providing the group with its common appellation. The "Know Nothings" believed a "Romanist" conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in America and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in the defense of traditional religious and political values. In most places "Know Nothingism" lasted only a year or two before disintegrating because of weak local leaders, few publicly-declared national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of slavery. While the party is remembered for its anti-Catholicism, based on Protestant fears that Catholic priests and bishops would directly control a large bloc of voters, in the South it gave much less emphasis to Catholicism. Among the party's few prominent leaders were Speaker Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts[1] and former U.S. Representative Lewis C. Levin. The American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election, although he kept quiet about his membership.[2]
The "Know Nothings" believed a "Romanist" conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in America and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in the defense of traditional religious and political values.
In most places "Know Nothingism" lasted only a year or two before disintegrating because of weak local leaders, few publicly-declared national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of slavery. While the party is remembered for its anti-Catholicism, based on Protestant fears that Catholic priests and bishops would directly control a large bloc of voters, in the South it gave much less emphasis to Catholicism.
Among the party's few prominent leaders were Speaker Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts[1] and former U.S. Representative Lewis C. Levin. The American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election, although he kept quiet about his membership.[2]
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too.
Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too.
Granted, but a key thing about climate change theorists is that they generally use models rather than experiments and observation. As I've said previously, models are a dangerous thing, because they're so easy to mess up, and so easy to cook.
Again, I go back to all of these daily weather models which are never fully correct. Most follow a trend, and there is serious agreement between climate models. What I question is the level to which people claim fact over theory or incomplete flushing out of the data.
My point is that yes there is a significant amount of support for the theory of climate change, but there's a difference between science fact and science theory.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors. Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues?
Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors.
Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues?
Don't think that I don't get exposure to climate change theory. I've seen way more than enough thanks in large part to intercity public schooling where cataclysimc climate change is as true as the fact that the sun is hot.
I've always been the debate sort of person. Being the one conservative in a class of 75 liberals gets one used to it. We had an absolute blast in numerous classes on countless issues. I like to think I provided some balance to the situation, it certainly was fun. One thing is for sure: when you're really forced to put your beliefs to the test time and time again for 6 years through middle and high school, you really can't carry BS arguments with you. More on that below.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered. They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered.
They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
When it comes to industry, our primary polluters, and daily use habits, it becomes insanely obvious within about 30 seconds that yes, we pollute a significant sum. But the key is that there is a difference between "carbon bad windmills good" and a practical energy and production policy.
Clearly, what we saw from 1800 until about 1970 in the west, particularly, was reckless abandon for the planet. Cleveland even managed to set their river on fire, of course.
What we saw was thankfully, policies instituted wherein we began to reign in our pollution, which is a noble goal in any and every case. Even some of the latest power plant rules, up until the most recent Clean Power Plan, was highly effective and pragmatic.
Here's what I see: I see that we took the technologies available and developing, and put them to use, on an equitable basis balancing the needs of society with the environmental cost.
The problem now, is that the developed world has reached the end of what can easily be cleaned up. As with the Clean Power Plan, futher cuts are generally limited by the intersection of new technology and costs, for small gains in pollution. Europe, Canada and the US have pretty much reached the end of point-source pollution controls, in terms of the gains they can net us.
Meanwhile, developing countries, particularly India and China, are still in the circa 1940-1960 era in terms of pollution. The Paris Climate Accord goal for China, is to, over the timeframe of the agreement, stop emission growth.
This has already happened in the US, Canada, and the EU.
If the proponents of cataclysmic climate change are truly serious, they'd be beating much more on the developing world. Solving problems by shaving off tiny bits for many billions isn't going to solve it. The biggest cuts to be made are not in the US, Canada or the EU, they're in Asia.
But beyond cutting, to the parts of the equation vastly overlooked when it comes to climate change:
First and foremost, pavement. Look, I'm a civil engineer in training. We LOVE pavement. And humans, we love our structures. But woah, have we not built either in a sustainable fashion since probably the 1920s. There are very few studies really taking a close look at the heat sink effects of our cities. This is a problem, because obviously, a significant portion of the global temperature increase is due to this effect. How much of the global temperature increases over the last 80 years have been due to urban expansion? We don't have anywhere close to a good answer, but how are we to "solve" climate change, without considering all the factors?
Mainstream climate change believers talk all day about CO2, but hardly ever anything else.
Another point is the sun's radiation. Constant it is not. Now this is something much more flushed out, at least from what I've seen, than urban heat sinking, but there is still a TON of ground to cover in terms of understanding the variations and how they impact the climate. We're coming off of a decade or so of comparatively weak solar radiation...is this a significant contributor to the recent so-caled "pause" in global temperature increases? We don't know.
Anyways, sorry for being incredibly long-winded, but in terms of this debate, yes it is politcal, and yes we all fall into it, because it is unavoidable. It's governence, and people fight about that stuff.
My take on the issue at-large is that we haven't yet come to an entirely firm conclusion on the true nature of climate change, from the factors to the actual rate of change. And so, many of us continue to be skeptical when some propose artifically raising fuel prices, forcing closed power plants, and taxing the heck out of every concieveable negative to the environment.
We have huge impacts, but retarding the economy and our personal liberties are not slam-dunk solutions, and maybe not solutions at all, so says the skeptical school of thought.
I did not bring up round earth as an analogy to current climate change debate.
But it seems to me that the analogy of the proof of round earth to proof of the predicted damage arising from climate change only holds up if the latter is finally proven and not just believed in.
And are the two challenges really that similar? Proving round earth seems like a walk in the woods compared to proving the effect of manmade CO2.
And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary? A lot of people say that even if we can’t prove the climate change theory, we should take action just in case it is true, because if we wait, it may be too late to take action.
That is one way of looking at it, but there is another way. The planetary destruction prediction arising from climate change is dire, and the remedy will not be cheap. What if the prediction is found wrong after we have paid for the remedy? And what exactly is the cost of the remedy?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440844/climate-change-solutions-economic-cost-outweighs-environmental-benefits
Saturnalia Again, I go back to all of these daily weather models which are never fully correct. Most follow a trend, and there is serious agreement between climate models. What I question is the level to which people claim fact over theory or incomplete flushing out of the data.
Which probably never will be fully correct - Edward Lorenz found this out in the early 60's when trying to restart a really simple weather simulation. He entered values from a printout hoping to duplicate an earlier run, but the printout only had 3 significant figures versus the six stored in memory. Within a short while, the restarted simulation was diverging rapidly from the original simulation.
But beyond cutting, to the parts of the equation vastly overlooked when it comes to climate change: First and foremost, pavement. Look, I'm a civil engineer in training. We LOVE pavement. And humans, we love our structures. But woah, have we not built either in a sustainable fashion since probably the 1920s. There are very few studies really taking a close look at the heat sink effects of our cities. This is a problem, because obviously, a significant portion of the global temperature increase is due to this effect. How much of the global temperature increases over the last 80 years have been due to urban expansion? We don't have anywhere close to a good answer, but how are we to "solve" climate change, without considering all the factors? Mainstream climate change believers talk all day about CO2, but hardly ever anything else.
Land use has a huge efect on surface temperatures as well as the local weather. In parts of Manhattan, the heat emitted from the buildings exceeds the energy from the sun in that same area. Pavement is an excellent example as the normally dark surface does lead to local warming - during the Governator administration there was talk about requiring more reflective roofing and pavement.
In the meantime, the cost of natural gas is now high enough that coal is becoming competitive again.
SaturnaliaGranted, but a key thing about climate change theorists is that they generally use models rather than experiments and observation.
Climate models didn't fall from the sky. They were developed over tenth of years from available data. They are checked steadily against the known climate data line especially the best known last 125+ years.
And they are not accurate but it the best we have.
I wrote it before, all climate models were used to simulate the last 125 years without manmade influences. Only when they included the latter it worked.
SaturnaliaMy point is that yes there is a significant amount of support for the theory of climate change, but there's a difference between science fact and science theory.
Sure there is a difference. But in this case mankind might never see proof without reasonable doubt. Only ever better evidence. When I look at the potential consequences I think it is time to act.
And you are right CO2 is not the only manmade influence on global warming.
SaturnaliaThe problem now, is that the developed world has reached the end of what can easily be cleaned up. As with the Clean Power Plan, futher cuts are generally limited by the intersection of new technology and costs, for small gains in pollution. Europe, Canada and the US have pretty much reached the end of point-source pollution controls, in terms of the gains they can net us.
I think we are not at the end. We can reduce CO2 polution further but perhaps with economical compromises. Denmark is currently at 59% renewables in power generation. Germany is behind with 30% but both countries aim for 100%. Back-ups for sunless dead calm days is necessary as long as there are noth enough storage plants. And that is lignite coal currenly here, the dirtiest way to do it. It should be gas power plants. So there is a lot that can be done.
SaturnaliaAnyways, sorry for being incredibly long-winded, but in terms of this debate, yes it is politcal, and yes we all fall into it, because it is unavoidable. It's governence, and people fight about that stuff.
In principle the climate change debate is a science debate. It got a political debate because governments took the lead in the necessary actions. The difference between Europe and the USA is that in Europe it is supported by all large, relevant camps.Regards, Volker
Ok I'll accept that, but can you see how others who aren't in on the joke can take your comment and misunderstand it?
EuclidAnd also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?
Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence.
EuclidA lot of people say that even if we can’t prove the climate change theory, we should take action just in case it is true, because if we wait, it may be too late to take action.
We will note if a proof is found. That might be our grand-grand children but it is possible that is never proof beyond resonable doubt. So in my opinion we have to do something.
Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
As of 2015 in the USA 770,000 people were employed in the renewably energy sector. So there are not just jobs lost but gained too.
If you hold on to technologies too long you might be left behind. Siemens once invented the Fax but sold the patents to Japanese interests because they didn't want to destroy their Telex business.
If you see measures only under poitical and economical viewpoints I can't help you.
If that were the majority in the world one only could beg that the evidence might be wrong.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid said: "And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?" Volker said: "Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence."
Euclid said:
"And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?"
Volker said:
"Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence."
Getting a cleaner environment by spending money on fighting climate change assumes that CO2 is damaging the environment. We have already cleaned up coal burning emissions that we know are harmful because of their toxicity. The issue with CO2 is not a matter of toxicity. It is its complex role in the greenhouse climate effect. That role is the core of the debate. So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real. We will have spent the money, but it won’t result in a cleaner environment.
VOLKER LANDWEHRWhy don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
Obviously, there are two opposing sides to this argument. A fair minded person would listen to both sides. So I post something from the side that you disagree with, and you immediately reject it because it comes from the side you disagree with. If the opposite side can’t be in the debate, how can their views be considered?
If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media? Obviously, there are two opposing sides to this argument. A fair minded person would listen to both sides. So I post something from the side that you disagree with, and you immediately reject it because it comes from the side you disagree with. If the opposite side can’t be in the debate, how can their views be considered? If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440844/climate-change-solutions-economic-cost-outweighs-environmental-benefits
VOLKER LANDWEHR Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
Nuts to the Left .... Nuts to the Right
The middleground is unexploded ordnance from all the nut shots.
Norm48327 Euclid The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half. You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.
Euclid The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.
The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity.
It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.
You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.
Where does this stuff come from.... It's totally uncalled for.
Euclid We have already cleaned up coal burning emissions that we know are harmful because of their toxicity.
Not only the USA had to limit toxic emissions and many other countries were much less stringent. And you can't see the emissions completely differently. Take coal and gas fired power plants: If you change to gas you have a lot less CO2 but simultanously less SOx and NOx.
Euclid So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real.
Were should be the risks? The last 2,000 years the CO2 content moved between about 270 ppm 300 ppm. Since about 1900 the content has risen to 400 ppm.
All measures in the future will not get the CO2 content down to 300 ppm again. So I can't see a risk as we had it before.Regards, Volker
Volker,
I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof.
VOLKER LANDWEHREuclid: So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real. Were should be the risks?
Were should be the risks?
Money. This is the most important concern to many.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
EuclidIf this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication.
I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations.
The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence.
My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele.
Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof.
Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act.
If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then.
With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return.
We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse.
I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry.Regards, Volker
P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.
Time to re-post!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.