New internal combustion car sales to be banned in UK in 15 years

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Hah, well never mind that most of the people at those agencies are carryover. And there's a big difference between believing CO2 is responsible for some warming, and the alarmist view. Let's not sweep under the rug that it's also impossible to determine how much of the warming has been by CO2, and how much other factors. The global average temperature itself is extremely hard to measure and flawed in its coverage. Additionally for every extra molecule of CO2 added to atmosphere, it has half of the effect of the previous molecule. By the laws of physics its impossible for CO2 to be responsible for much more warming.

CO2 possibly could be easier to change. Except nobody is embracing nuclear energy. Which is the only way this will happen. Otherwise its close to impossible to change. Paris Accord was a joke. Nobody is following it and even if everyone did (at great economic pain) nobody would even notice it's difference.

So this is where I bow out because I didn't know I was talking to a physicist who is also a climatologist who is also capable of refuting the consensus of 99% of climatologists.

I would say you are very incorrect when stating nobody is embracing nuclear (see below). The problem is that when nuclear reactors fail they can cause massive destruction and displacement (also see below). For areas like California that has earthquakes, the idea of a reactor doesn't seem safe. For other areas, there is still risks if they get floods, tornadoes or hurricanes. In a post 9/11 world, there is fear of terrorists intentionally damaging a reactor and stealing radioactive materials. Then there is the economics, which I also linked:

Because of the long life of new nuclear power plants, most of the value of a new nuclear power plant is created for the benefit of future generations.

The nuclear power industry in Western nations has a history of construction delays, cost overruns, plant cancellations, and nuclear safety issues despite significant government subsidies and support.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-next...lte-and-safer/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea..._and_incidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...r_power_plants

[Lantanafrs2]

Regardless of what causes global warming, is it a good idea to contribute to it?

[WolfpackS2k]

It's nowhere close to "99%", but okay. Also one doesn't have to be a climate expert to understand the relationship between CO2 itself and the atmosphere. Every climatologist will tell you that alone CO2 won't cause big issues. The ones that fear AGW are counting on the positive feedback mechanisms they think increased CO2 will cause. If you spent a few minutes (or 15+ years like myself) researching and following this, you'd see that.

A few nuclear disasters (however extremely unlikely) pail in comparison to the doom and gloom predicted by alarmists AGW believers. Nevermind modern nuclear technology is even safer.

Lantanafrs2, if CO2 isn't a huge problem then no, it's not worth spending 10s of trillions of dollars and mandating social upheaval. Not worth giving the governments increasing control of society, and not worth persecuting the poor with extremely regressive taxes/costs.

[86MLR]

The elephant in the room is population growth.

There is too many people for the earth to suport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are the stupidest creatures on the planet.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

The elephant in the room is population growth.

There is too many people for the earth to suport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are the stupidest creatures on the planet.

see also:
https://news.avclub.com/nasa-forced-...hei-1841604794

[gravitylover]

I'd be ok with eliminating 3 or 4 billion humans if...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

It's nowhere close to "99%", but okay. Also one doesn't have to be a climate expert to understand the relationship between CO2 itself and the atmosphere. Every climatologist will tell you that alone CO2 won't cause big issues. The ones that fear AGW are counting on the positive feedback mechanisms they think increased CO2 will cause. If you spent a few minutes (or 15+ years like myself) researching and following this, you'd see that.

A few nuclear disasters (however extremely unlikely) pail in comparison to the doom and gloom predicted by alarmists AGW believers. Nevermind modern nuclear technology is even safer.

Lantanafrs2, if CO2 isn't a huge problem then no, it's not worth spending 10s of trillions of dollars and mandating social upheaval. Not worth giving the governments increasing control of society, and not worth persecuting the poor with extremely regressive taxes/costs.

Sorry, I over spoke. 97%

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You are out of your league when you try to refute scientists on this subject. I am reporting what scientists are finding. You are making claims that contradict the overwhelming body of evidence. Scientists have multiple data points that all lead to the same conclusion, and they tie in multiple scientific disciplines. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are leading to warming. To deny this is like throwing your hat in with the flat-earthers.

But let's change tactics here because you made a separate statement at the end. You made a lot of claims about what it will cost to combat climate change. How do you know those changes won't stimulate the economy with new jobs and new growth? Some say we would never have gotten out of the Great Depression if it wasn't for WWII and the stimulus the war brought to the economy. Couldn't the need to transform our society lead to prosperity? Do you really know it would be bad, as you claim? Since the world is warming, but if it isn't AGW (as you say) then don't we still need to prepare societies for rising tides, hotter climates, extreme weather, etc, and shouldn't we do everything to minimize or reverse our contribution, kinda regardless? If you are wrong, isn't it much worse if we do nothing, then if I am wrong, and we do something?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

The elephant in the room is population growth.

There is too many people for the earth to suport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are the stupidest creatures on the planet.

We have too many people for the world to support the way it does or at US consumption levels. The future is a bug-eating, hippie vegan that needs a license to reproduce.

Population could stabilize and actually reduce. We need the poorest people in the world to adopt family planning then it would stabilize, and in many places in the world, population growth is in the negative, that is, growth is less than the 2.1 average-kids-per-couple that is needed to maintain a population. Watch TEDs Hans Rosling.

Originally Posted by soundman98

see also:
https://news.avclub.com/nasa-forced-...hei-1841604794

Originally Posted by gravitylover

I'd be ok with eliminating 3 or 4 billion humans if...

If it were these people?

[why?]

consensus is not science. People being paid by the government to say something are not believable.

The governments of our world are a total and complete failure at everything. They need to be executed, not given more power.

[WolfpackS2k]

^^population growth is leveling off. So be happy about that.

Me, I'm just happy because I'm not the least bit concerned about this nonsense. Well, other than governments using this as excuses to expand power.

[Halo_2]

Cant wait to drive one @ 1min
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCMKfEE3vlk[/ame]

[Halo_2]

As for nuclear power the only reactor they should build is what bill gates has designed cant meltdown and uses spent fuel.

[MaverickMonk]

Originally Posted by why?

consensus is not science. People being paid by the government to say something are not believable.

The governments of our world are a total and complete failure at everything. They need to be executed, not given more power.

Post docs, researchers and grad students are barely paid at all, much less paid by a government conspiracy.

Furthermore, all grant money does is pay for the research. When a scientist or professor gets a million dollar grant it doesn’t go into their pocket. They aren’t gig workers on Fiver. Their salary is paid by the institution they work at, with minimal exceptions (some institutions operate on a 9 month pay scale and funding can be used to pay that same salary rate over the summer months. But most tenured professors have enough projects going, and their income is such a small part of the grant, that they aren’t exactly in risk of losing that pay if they lose a grant.) they’re also usually working on multiple projects at the same time. Hell we were writing grant proposals probably once a quarter, for everything from DoD stuff to solar power.

Most importantly though: grants are issued at the start of the research, and cannot be revoked based on the results. Marlboro could pay me 20 million to do a study that shows kale is worse for you than smoking a pack a day. I would then likely end up writing a rather comical paper showing that smoking kills people and kale is just gross, not deadly. Marlboro wouldn’t be able to do a dang thing about it (other than send assassins after me).

Hell, finding good research that contradicts the expected is every researchers dream. That’s where Nobel prizes come from. And yet, study after study and scientist after scientist has shown the same thing.

And if 97% of scientists coming to the same conclusion ISNT science... what is?

[why?]

Get out of your tiny little bubble please. You are amazingly naive. If the scientists don't say what the idiots want, they never get another penny of grant money. And that 97% number is totally fictitious. Just like the entire terrorist ecofreak scam. The only truth the ecofreaks ever say is even if totally and completely destroy the economy of every nation of the entire planet, we still won't be able to do anything to change what the world's climate is, because we don't understand all the factors that play a part. Everything else they say is bs.