I've not insulted you nor called you any names. I'm challenging you on the words that you have written. If that doesn't make you happy you are certainly free to not engage.
O's really dislikes engaging with one of the most respectful posters in this forum, who is willing to have a substantive exchange of ideas. lol.
Thanks I appreciate it. Os doesn't have to respect or like me. I'm not offended if he doesn't want to engage and I mean it when I say I have no animosity towards him. I obviously don't agree with him all of the time but he has posted interesting stuff before and I will probably comment on his posts in the future and he is under no obligation to reply.
Personally, I sometimes find it annoying when I think you're too respectful and willing to substantively engage with posters who really just deserve to be mocked.
So do you disagree that the US is lagging other industrialized nations or do you feel we SHOULD be lagging behind? Just want to clarify what you are advocating so I know how to respond.
no. I am not arguing that the US should be lagging behind. Give me a specific case, if foreign nations are foolishly spending money on something that is stupid, something specific, and the US is "lagging behind" on spending money on that SPECIFIC STUPID THING, then I will consider arguing the affirmative "yes on this SPECIFIC ISSUE THE US SHOULD BE LAGGING BEHIND."
it's fairly hilarious that people consider calling someone out on a pattern of straw man argumentation is a sign of "disrespect"
You were saying there might be a good argument for something if what an author, who’s views you were quoting at length, says turns out to be true. In fairness, that’s very easy to confuse with you arguing for that thing. I had to read what you wrote multiple times to see the distinction, and I’m still not positive I see it. I don’t think he was purposely trying to straw man.
Yeap. Especially from someone that is a fan of uncertainty as a reason to not act. CO2 is very well understood. Aerosol injection, not at all. Anyone in the co2 uncertainty camp while being an advocate for aerosol cooling showcase their bias very clearly.
I'm willing to try a text-based discussion again. Here are excerpts from Lomborg's 2020 paper on policy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...humanity-can-still-avoid-climate-catastrophe/ Opinion: Actually, humanity can still avoid climate catastrophe By the Editorial Board Today at 5:25 p.m. EDT Every half-decade or so, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases an authoritative report on climate change, reflecting the consensus view among a vast number of experts and government officials. The latest installment, on the path humanity must take to avoid punishing climate consequences, came out on Monday. Another analysis filled with dire warnings, the latest report might seem depressing — or, depending on one’s point of view, encouraging. The report found that humanity has used up almost its entire budget of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions if the planet is to avoid warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, the threshold scientists warn the average global temperature should not surpass. Another decade of emissions at the level between 2010 and 2019 would expend nearly all of the rest. With the policies in place as of 2020, the world will warm 3.2 degrees Celsius. If nations meet the commitments they made under the landmark Paris agreement, they would nudge that down to 2.8 degrees. To get on track, global emissions must peak before 2025, then decline rapidly. Sounds grim. The encouraging part is that progress is still possible — easier, in fact, than one would have expected even a decade ago. The cost of renewables such as wind and solar has plummeted. Battery technology has improved. Some 18 countries have cut their emissions for 10 years straight. The pathway is clearer now than it has ever been. Cheaper renewables need to be deployed quickly and at massive scale, with continued government aid. Building standards must cut energy waste from the built environment. Cities must require better public transportation and non-car infrastructure. Electric vehicles must become the norm and run on a cleaner energy grid. Better technology and less wasteful behavior could cut energy needs by half by 2050. Further research will have to fill in a few gaps. Planes and ships might have to run on hydrogen. Industrial processes such as cement-making require improvements in chemistry. There might be some sectors that never decarbonize fully. To offset these, countries will have to remove carbon dioxide directly from the air. The easiest way to do this is to stop cutting down trees and other plant life — and, indeed, to grow more. More outlandish ideas include “fertilizing” the ocean to induce CO2-gobbling plankton to proliferate, an idea that the report warns could have unintended effects on ocean ecosystems. Indeed, governments will have to be mindful of myriad trade-offs. Using more land for solar farms and tree-growing means that it cannot be used to grow food for an expanding world population, so agricultural intensity will have to improve. Some people in legacy fossil fuel industries will lose jobs, even as employment expands in other sectors. Governments will have to subsidize research budgets and ensure that money flows into renewables. All told, the report concludes, the costs might mean that world gross domestic product is a few percentage points lower in 2050 — not accounting for the value of the environmental destruction avoided. But those benefits would far outweigh the costs. The United States has rejoined the Paris agreement, and Congress is considering major climate legislation. As it has on the fight for democracy in Ukraine and a host of other global issues, it is time for the United States to lead again.
West Coast in trouble... 'A year after year disaster:' The American West could face a 'brutal' century under climate change Two studies published this week forecast a dire future of climate-fueled disasters for the American West. Without substantive action, wildfires will dramatically increase dangerous air pollution in the Pacific Northwest and parts of northern California. More fires followed by floods also are predicted to cause more devastating mudslides The scientists modeled several scenarios. In what’s known as the “middle of the road” climate change scenario, in which carbon emissions don’t start to fall before mid-century and don’t reach net-zero until 2100, the models show smoke pollution increasing by 100% to 150%.In the “business as usual” scenario, in which society doesn’t make concerted efforts to cut greenhouse gases, smoke increases 130% to 260%.The danger stretches across the United States. Wildfire smoke can travel hundreds and even thousands of miles. In July, smoke from Western wildfires triggered air quality alerts and caused smoky skies and red-orange haze in New York, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Boston. The danger stretches across the United States. Wildfire smoke can travel hundreds and even thousands of miles. In July, smoke from Western wildfires triggered air quality alerts and caused smoky skies and red-orange haze in New York, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Boston.
Some promising news on the plastic waste front Lab turns hard-to-process plastic waste into carbon-capture master Flash graphene rocks strategy for plastic waste If we had more gains on solar, I imagine spending a large amount of it to recapture carbon would be a noble effort, since everyone is motivated to keep the music playing while producing a shitload of waste products.
