Renewable Revolution

Quote from: RE on December 07, 2018, 09:31:16 am

Quote from: Ashvin on December 07, 2018, 09:13:32 am

Quote from: RE on December 07, 2018, 08:47:22 am

Quote from: Ashvin on December 07, 2018, 07:40:45 am

Quote from: RE on December 06, 2018, 01:05:37 pm

Quote from: Ashvin on December 06, 2018, 01:00:30 pm

If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE

Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE

Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening. At least that way we have some peace and happiness before everything turns to ****. The likelihood we come close to implementing anything resembling a "power down" is zero, and therefore there is no way to reverse the warming. Of course AG would have us believe differently, but then again he predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful.

Anyway, I stated at the outset that I don't know anything about the climate science. The only reason I responded to you initially was that you asked a question and told me it was a violation of the CoC not to answer it. It's unsurprising that AG and Surly have now decided to pretend like I am making bold assertions about AGW and asking for research dissertations. That's resentment speaking. It's all very tarantula-like.

Again, Watson defends the status quo. Here is the "rationale" that Watson uses to not DO Climate Change:


You, Watson, are lying when you state that, " AG ... ... predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful."

Nice try at pounding the table, Counselor (CoC be damned, right?). 

That's defamatory as well as being a deliberate attempt at distorting both the content and subject matter of my posts over the last 6 years, along with those of Surly.

Surly said it best when he addressed your language twisting, morally challenged, sophistry early in this thread, so it is appropriate for me to repost it now with regard to the bold faced lies you just posted about me, in still ANOTHER attempt to derail this thread, where RE has successfully exposed your refusal to face facts about the dire threat to humanity that Catastrophic Climate Change represents:

Quote from: Ashvin on December 04, 2018, 08:40:29 am

The problems with socialism are many. Orwell recognized very quickly that the socialists of his day were motivated by intellectual snobbery and resentment rather than compassion for the poor working class. 60 years later and nothing has changed...

Socialist ideology ignores human nature and treats everyone as "blank slates" who can be molded by the totalitarian state to achieve equality of socioeconomic outcomes. They set up re-education and re-training camps which are doomed to failure. This flies in the face of decades of psychological and sociological research.

Postmodern ideology tries to sneak in thoroughly debunked socialist ideology by pointing out the corrupt aspects of capitalist institutions, and then pretending that there is no other conclusion to reach other than ALL capitalist hierarchies are corrupted by power. And as long as we are playing this game, why not advocate for the socialist power hierarchies instead of the capitalist ones?

Among the numerous facts they ignore is that intelligence and trait conscientiousness account for some 25-40% of long-term life outcomes in capitalist society. This does not fit in with their ideological critiques, because it suggests that competence actually plays a role. But everyone knows competence plays a large role, and that makes them even more resentful and envious of the successful. To the point where they are willing to advocate for bloody revolutions and extermination campaigns as a justified means of "leveling the playing field".

What a pile of crap, false assertions, straw men and charged language. You certainly know how to wield language as a weapon, but you're not selling anything here.

And for the record, no on here is "playing a game" but you.

How well I remember the stories told by my father and uncles about the gulags and re-education camps they suffered under FDR.

Be sure to post the URL of your new blog, celebrating this, the best of all possible worlds.

Also, Ashvin, your claim to "know nothing of climate science" is, and has been, for the last 5 years or so, another lie. Yeah, you aren't a Climate Scientist. So? You aren't illiterate. You have always "known enough" to consistently doubt the validity of drastic national action to mitigate the cause of Climate Change. An objective observer who is honestly and genuinely, and innocently, ignorant of what science has clearly stated about greenhouse gasses would have to be living under a rock for the past 30 years with no radio, newspapers, television, internet or human neighbors. That does not apply to you.

You, Ashvin, a person who frequents financial web sites, could never have avoided real science based warnings in the literature among all the Fossil Fuel funded Denier CRAP you have read.

You formed an opinion based on what you have read. It is disingenuous to claim you are "without an opinion" or "don't know enough about it to form an opinion" on the causes of climate change. The fact that you vigorously defend a status quo that has been proven by science to be the overwhelming cause of climate change evidences that.

I recall how you supported the, "it's mostly meat production, not fossil fuels",  baloney and would not let go of it even when I posted well referenced charts to try to explain to you that fossil fuels are far and away the main contributor to Global Warming. I made it clear that, even though it would help (slow it a bit) somewhat, the problem of increasing global average temperature would not be stopped by everyone going vegan. At which point you retreated into your "not knowing enough about the science to form an opinion".

One thing that is consistent about your sophistry laden "debating technique" is the despicable attempt to frame the opponent as "hysterical, irrational, nonsensical, etc.".

As Surly said earlier about what you typically post, you're not selling anything here.

For those reading this, the following chart, or one with similar emperical data, is something Ashvin may claim he has "never seen". I doubt that.


Here's another one that Ashvin may claim he, "knows nothing about". I don't think so.