I've always found it funny how both the evolution deniers and climate change deniers keep demanding proof even when it has been given to them. Yet not a single one of them has the tiny shred of evidence to support their claims. At least the Bigfoot hunters have grainy photos and footprints. All deniers have are claims, cries of conspiracy and walls of texts that they copy/pasted from some website owned by an oil company.
I'm saying calm discussion is the way to get attention. Evangelizing and waving fingers and spouting doom is the way to make people think you're a kook and change the channel to something quieter.
Wrong. Honestly, "evangelizing and waving fingers"? Again, no one attempting a scientific discussion is doing that. And I'd say those kinds of hyperbolic statements are the ones that need to be excised to provide a more "calm discussion" - particularly a scientific one.
If this version of Cosmos were any quieter, they could sell it as an insomnia cure. The original was much more dynamic, and definitely not "quiet."
In the end the transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable has to happen ANYWAY. We "alarmist" just want it to happen NOW instead of later. There is no magic technology (that includes nuclear fission and fusion) that will make the transition easier. In the end, climate deniers just want to ignore the problem and hope someone magically solves it for them or worse want their children and grandchildren to fix the problem.
Actually, the best way to transition to renewables is to demand that oil, coal, and natural gas companies charge three times more than the costs of production and transport, to create a competitive environment for the pricier boutique fuels. You should all call your congressmen and demand that oil companies make 300 percent profit. That's one reason oil companies bankroll so much climate alarmism.
Yep, and if we don't start working on it now, our children and grandchildren will most certainly face the end results, and will have to scramble to save their future, instead of our generation just fixing the problem now, and making the transition smoother.
And the cost of EVERYTHING will rise by 300% leading to job loss, poverty and social chaos. This is what I mean,the transition will NOT BE EASY. Everybody is going to suffer and the poor (who don't have any reserves) will suffer the most. I really don't see how you can force the entire human population to suffer for an entire GENERATION unless you put a gun to it's head. All the sweat promises in the world isn't going convince a parent who is watching his child slowly starve. It's just easier to hope it doesn't happen.
Speaking of renewables, here is a wind farm in Upstate NY: Every little bit helps. And, economic alarmists notwithstanding (really, scientifically explaining the results of global warming is "alarmist" but saying "force the entire human population to suffer for an entire GENERATION" is not? lol), will actually reduce costs and improve the economy.
Wishful thinking isn't going to solve the problem. A few wind farms and some solar cells isn't going to make a difference when Co2 emissions increase exponentially. The ugly truth are the transition cost are going to be high. We can't just stop the growth of CO2 emission, we need to stop ALL industrial CO2 emissions. Worse we have to somehow remove the CO2 that we put there. The desperation you hear from scientist is the slowly dawning realization that we missed our chance. Humanity's only hope is that climate change deniers are right.
I don't think we're that far gone, yet. There are certainly changes happening now that we can't prevent, like the rising of sea levels, but if we start a real process, get things rolling, and actively change our energy choices, we can still have a very bright future ahead, and by bright future I don't mean one where the ozone has been stripped away and the intense radiation of the Sun has left a smoking husk of a planet in its stead.
One estimate I read stated it will take HALF the world's wealth to make the transition. That's not just the hardware but also the social uphevel that will happen. How are you going to convince all of humanity to give up HALF of what they owned to stop global climate change. Another estimate stated that America's GDP will be slashed by a THIRD as the US makes the transition. We already saw what a loss of 10% did to our economy. China on the other hand could lose it's entire middle and upper class. Over half of America's middle class is one paycheck away from poverty. We are basically screwed.
This is the kind of thinking that the deniers love. If we try to change things for the better, everyone will be doomed (but we're the "alarmists"). Better to just do nothing and keep letting the polluters rake in their profits. Give me a break.
I just wanted to point out a geeky observation. The segment of NDGT walking on the beach with his dog comes directly from an economics paper from 1994 titled "A Drunk and Her Dog".
That's dumb. Why should the energy companies get the profit? Clearly the easier way is for the federal government to raise taxes on the oil, coal, and gas companies. Then return that money as subsidies for renewable energy. The influx of money into the renewable energy market will be used to develop better technologies, and ultimately renewables will be cheaper for everyone. The watchout here is placing unnatural controls on a free market, as that always has unpredictable effects. Also, the politicians in position to make these changes are not exactly the most likely to be in favor of it. The net effect to the consumer will be the same: a 300% increase in costs. But the money isn't lining some oil executives pocket, it should (keyword: should) be going back to renewables.
The thing that really irritates me is that the prime opportunity to make those changes that would keep costs relatively down was in the past; except as more and more denialist rhetoric grew, the more that legislation and corporate green initiatives would get shot down. George W. Bush was one of the main opponents to exploring more ecologically sound technologies at the industrial level during his first term; ironic when you consider that his father was one of the biggest and most visible cheerleaders of Earth Day 1990 (make no mistake that Bush the Elder was still an oil man with his own interests, but still a far cry from today's denialists). As others have pointed out, these are facts that we've known for decades, but denying climate change or the impact of humanity on the environment has only been a relatively recent phenomenon. Twenty years ago, saving the environment was a bipartisan, politically safe, near-unanimous stance. If we started efforts in earnest years ago, we'd be on par with other more advanced countries; but if we keep putting off more efforts, it'll only get more expensive because of build-up.
Right. The sad irony is, the Republican Party used to be great champions of environmentalism, for most of their history. It was Richard Nixon who founded the EPA. There was a time when Republicans recognized that conservatism and conservation went hand in hand, that conservative values meant protecting and taking care of our resources and our environment so we didn't lose the benefits they gave us. And the fact is, it's already too late to stop climate change. The window is past. Even if we completely stopped burning carbon tomorrow, the climate would still change significantly. This is already happening and will continue to happen, and we'll simply have to adapt to it. At this point it's just a question of whether we let it get even worse or do what we can to minimize the damage.