That would depend on the cost to do so. In a perfect world, absolutely you would want to do that, but are we talking about putting a burden on the poor that they can't afford? How much suffering would it lead to if we told developing nations that they have to stop developing until they can afford the more expensive eco-friendly methods? I'm not against renewable sources of energy or technology that pollutes less, I'm just saying that the technology isn't there now to where it's an affordable option. Once that happens, absolutely we should make the switch for numerous reasons. What I'm against is seriously damaging the economy and crippling developing nations due to fear mongering.
You stated something that is simply not true - not the current understanding. The extend of cause by man is known within a range and that range said man cause is significant to today's warming. That's today science understanding. Your statement that liberal want to punish and tax businesses is as r****ded as it get. You don't get that those people who are concern about the future of the earth is caring about their kids and grand kids future? Their intention is for a better future, not a damn thing about punishing businesses. You constantly spew these garbage about liberals. You should check your hate because it's blinding you.
at the risk of re-entering this conversation. Actually you have said something that isn't true. The extent to which climate change is human-caused/anthropogenic is unknown, unless your range is anywhere from 1% human caused to 100% human caused. In which case your statement is only trivially true. The piece by Judy Curry that I linked to earlier again helps explain why this is so. I only posted excerpts, and the whole report is worth reading, but the relevant summary statement is this: Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose potential magnitude is highly uncertain. Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.
Conversation left me behind, but still want to say this. The problem needs a systemic solution, not motivated individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Personal efforts to reduce are drowned in a sea of pollution. To get a real and systemic solution to the problem, you need to leverage big social organisms like government and business to arm people with the tools they need to change the way they live. Asking why they leave their computer on is like telling someone who thinks the government should raise tax rates that they can voluntarily pay more if they want. It's like trying to convince someone to vote Jill Stein for president. Without an organization that can mobilize and coordinate millions to billions of people, there are some issues you cannot address.
Having watched that video, I did not use the argument of 97% of climate scientists point nor I do agree with his assertion about the benefits of fossil fuels being worth the risk of CO2 emissions that negatively affect our environment. More and more forms of alternate energy are being incorporated to lessen dependence on fossil fuels in part because of their risks. I think if you want to watch the extreme version of global warming, look no further than Venus. It's hotter than Mercury despite Mercury being closer to the sun than it because Venus' atmosphere insulates heat from greenhouse gases far better. I don't think our earth will resemble Venus anytime soon but that planet should be a cautionary tale if negligence continues for generations ahead. Again from the video you linked, it now seems the goal post has been moved from humans do not contribute to unusually high CO2 emission, to how bad can it really be now that we know we do? I guess my only answer is, do you really want to wait and find out? While high CO2 emission does not personally affect my day to day life, it will affect poorer countries with non-fertile soil that depend on a good crop yield to survive. A rise in temperature makes for even scarcer crop yield forcing people to move to more densely populated areas instead. This creates culture clashes among outsiders and locals, similar to how the world treats Syrian refugees. You get people that want to preserve the culture of their homeland while outsiders want to preserve theirs on new land, but more than anything just survive. It affects fishermen too since a rise in the ocean's temperature forces fish that are used to a colder temperature to move further away from more common fishing grounds. In turn fishermen's yield is lessened affecting their livelihood. This is more of an issue for countries in Southeast Asia and people that live along the coast, but it does affect them too. If a rise in the global temperature continues and it looks like it will, will we then welcome refugees affected by it seeking asylum with open arms or will we turn them away since they're not our problem?
Climate denial is a conspiracy to flood the coasts, make Siberia into the world's next breadbasket, while lining up Midwestern energy billionaires. I read this in a fake news site and someone's gotta spread the Gospel to you sheeple.
Love the people who claim that we don't know how much global warming is caused by mankind's emissions. That's like saying we don't know the extent that smoking causes lung cancer in someone therefore "it's unknown the damage it causes to someone's lungs" - I mean it could be other things like genetics, or poor air quality, etc. So science isn't certain so stop believing smoking is bad for you!!!! This is logic of Os, Space Cadet, Dei KKK, and BobbytheGreatIdiot
What I said is based on not one or a few skeptics. You can almost choose any discipline and find at least one skeptic. I don't know why someone, without bias, would choose to go with the one or few skeptics. I read her pieces and her blogs for a couple of years now and I also have no interest in talking about any of it.
this kind of summarizes the climate debate. too many people want to just resort to ad hominem attacks on people rather than consider their arguments on the merits. We were talking about the attribution issue, and she offered an argument supported by analysis ("the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming"). You can either consider her argument and offer a substantive response, or you can simply dismiss her by name-calling. That's on you, that doesn't change the strength of her analysis or her conclusion.
Does an issue become political just because a lobbyist gets paid millions of dollars to shout out an opposing position from the truth at the top of his lungs? When people and organizations in power fight to maintain the status quo by paying off experts to change their opinions? Fifty years ago, it was a political issue if you wanted to assert that smoking caused lung cancer. Now we have accepted it, at the cost of several million lives and countless more once you consider how successful tobacco companies have been in the developing world. Frankly I am beyond words when it comes to climate control. We are done debating the issue.
Then don't debate it....but don't then be surprised when it doesn't get the funding that you want it to.
Huh, what? I just posted a video saying that there isn't scientific consensus about man-based cause to climate change. I wasn't complaining about lobbyists at all.
