71–80 of 183 posts
I am trying to find the source I read a few years ago where climate scientists are intentionally scaling back their predictions so they aren’t discounted as crazy doomsday predictions. I think that there are many accurate predictions out there but we mostly see the most mild ones because they figure some action is better than being written off completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Climate change will create the first trillionaire. Or it will break down every aspect of our current society until it is unrecognizable. Your "technology will save us" attitude isn't a plan, it's more of a prayer.
Yes, that future society will be unrecognizable in many ways. Today, my lifestyle emits over 30 tons of carbon dioxide per year. That's the weight of almost 30 cars every year. Any society that manages to do away with that will be completely different than today's. Unrecognizable, here we come!
>But muh burgers!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange. You seem to have posted a doctored image. The fact that your "1977" image uses modern typography should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 > AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “Ho…
Thanks! I didn't know what! What about the 1979 image?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm baffled. You "expect" something that you say you have no reason to expect, and you hope this expectation is wrong. Is this some new meaning of "expect" that I'm not familiar with? Or do you follow a psychological strategy of expecting bad things so that you'll always be pleasantly surprised?
It is a human phenomenon, that has religious and secular expressions. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology... ...some apocalyptic believers find the idea that the end is nigh to be validating. Individuals with a history of traumatic experiences, for example, may be fatalistic. For these people, finding a group of like-minded fatalists is reassuring. There may also be comfort in being able to a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a secondary market for offsets The simple solution to this big global catastrophe is my favorite money making scam. Here, just create this market for carbon credits. It makes my guys money while doing Jack shit. Seriously, if you think CO2 is the problem, the solution is to simply tax those that either t…
So one hand you're saying GP's opinion that pricing (taxing) carbon is a scam (?) that won't work. On the other hand you're saying we need to tax carbon? What exactly is it that you're saying?
I don’t get why people are so crazy about climate change. There are multiple avenues to fixing it. It’s a very simple problem to solve. Some aspects might not be like ocean acidification but cooling the planet is well within our reach. And when it starts getting way too warm, everyone will realize what’s happening and everyone will work together on a solution. It’s already starting to happen. It’s not like a gamma ra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said that billions are gonna die? Frankly, if the solution to climate change will slow economic growth, I think that the highest human cost will come from the lack of growth. To put it in clear terms: lack of growth means that a sewage system, or a hospital, don't get built. This _will_ cause victims.
Eh. While I’m optimistic that solutions will be found, in principle a shifting climate can radically alter food production. Billions could die. I don’t think they will, but in principle they could, and I lack the necessary background in agricultural science to tell what “likely” is.
Although of course the ships that bring immense amounts of food across the globe have been built, and are operated, with fossil fuels. As is our agriculture. Again, increase the cost of the fuel that makes both possible, and people will die.
It's going to happen faster than we've been told. I expect in 10 years global panic will set in.
Can you support this opinion?
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
Climate change will create the first trillionaire. Find every machine that eats fossil fuels and electrify it. Find every crop that requires stable land and predictable weather and farm it in a shipping container. Find every underlying infrastructure that requires decades to pay off and decentralize it. Instead of water line pipes, pull water out of the air. Instead of fiber optic cables make LEO satellites. Instead…
> Instead of water line pipes, pull water out of the air.
You need a lot of energy to transform water into vapor and you need to remove and dispose the same amount of energy to transform vapor into liquid water. Every three months there is a new Kickstarter scam that propose something like this. Sometimes it's an overoptimistic idealist, sometimes it's a plain scam, sometimes it's difficult to be sure. After a few months and a few millions in development, they just reinvent a dehumidifier with a fancy box.
> Find every crop that requires stable land and predictable weather and farm it in a shipping container.
The current farms cover approximately 40% of the land surface. So you need to build a huge number of shipping containers. Will they have a transparent top to get free light? What about irrigation? Why is it better to use shipping container instead of the current method? Is this just a grrenhouse
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Solving climate change can be as simple as getting a carbon price adopted. It needs to ramp up over time, allow a secondary market for offsets The simple solution to this big global catastrophe is my favorite money making scam. Here, just create this market for carbon credits. It makes my guys money while doing Jack shit. Seriously, if you think CO2 is the problem, the solution is to simply tax those that either t…
That’s essentially what he’s arguing for no?