The ultimate arrogance of climate change advocates

Author: 949havoc 2 years ago

Posts

Total: 23

Topic's author

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.10.2021 10:11PM

Saule Omarova, JoeBiden's pick to head the Treasury Dept's Office of the Controller of the Currency, has said, more than once, ""a lot of...small players in those industries" fossil fuel industries, that is, "are going to probably go bankrupt in short order... At least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change, right?"

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect. The climate was changing long before the advent of man on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

Arrogant to suggest that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

Arrogant because climate changes, period, with or without man.

Arrogant because there does not exist one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

Arrogant because the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

Arrogant because Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels, because they are constantly being replenished, and will continue to be replenished as long as life on Earth exists, or, "green energy," which does not include fossil fuels [let them make up their minds], amounts to roughly 22% of all energy resources used on Earth, whereas fossil fuels account for about 66% of all energy consumed on Earth. Further, although the percentage of green energy increases annually, it is in small singular digits, and we have, according to green new deal proponents, 7 years to get it right. The math, let alone the science, or the economics, just do not add.

Bankrupt that sector of the energy industry precipitously, as Omarova suggests, and we will no longer be worried about climate change as an existential threat.

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

11.10.2021 10:51PM

-->

@949havoc

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect.

No is saying it does

The climate was changing long before the advent of man on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

No one is saying it won’t.

Arrogant to suggest that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

No one is saying it is

Arrogant because climate changes, period, with or without man.

No one is saying it doesn’t.

Arrogant because there does not exist one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

No one is saying there is

Arrogant because the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

No one is really saying it does

Arrogant because Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

Why does this make it arrogant.

And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels, because they are constantly being replenished

No they aren’t.

and will continue to be replenished as long as life on Earth exists, or, "green energy," which does not include fossil fuels [let them make up their minds], amounts to roughly 22% of all energy resources used on Earth, whereas fossil fuels account for about 66% of all energy consumed on Earth. Further, although the percentage of green energy increases annually, it is in small singular digits, and we have, according to green new deal proponents, 7 years to get it right. The math, let alone the science, or the economics, just do not add.

Why does that make it arrogant?

Bones

Debates: 31

Posts: 965

Bones

11.10.2021 11:21PM

-->

@949havoc

If you were at Glasgow Climate Change Conference and were asked "what do you propose we ought to do to prevent climate change", what would you say?

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,170

FLRW

11.10.2021 11:23PM

-->

@949havoc

And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels,

Fossil fuels are not really fossil fuels and are not renewable. Oil and natural gas do not come from fossilized dinosaurs! Thus, they are not fossil fuels. That’s a myth. According to Wikipedia, the term “fossil fuel” was first used by German chemist Caspar Neumann in 1759. It was subsequently used more ubiquitously in the early 1900s to give people the idea that petroleum, coal and natural gas come from ancient living things, making them a natural substance. Petroleum, natural gas and coal come from biomass, primarily from plankton and decaying marine organisms, and “single-celled bacteria” that “evolved in the Earth’s oceans about three billion years ago. Over millions of years, layers of sediment built up, along with plants (plankton and algae) and bacteria. Heat and pressure began to rise. The degree of heat and the amount of pressure, along with the type of biomass, determine if the material becomes petroleum or natural gas.

Over the course of millions of years, “members of these massive colonies died off” and “sank to the bottom of the sea and were gradually covered by accumulating sediment. Over millions of years, these layers of sediment grew heavier and heavier until the dead bacteria trapped below were ‘cooked’ by the pressure and temperature into a stew of liquid hydrocarbons.

As for coal, the world’s coal deposits “were laid down during the Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago—which was still a good 75 million or so years before the evolution of the first dinosaurs.” Coal was formed when the dense forests and jungles were “buried beneath layers of sediment, and their unique fibrous chemical structure caused them to be ‘cooked’ into solid coal rather than liquid oil.

BigPimpDaddy

Debates: 5

Posts: 224

BigPimpDaddy

11.11.2021 12:21AM

-->

@FLRW

https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/sorry-folks-oil-does-not-come-dinosaurs

suspiciously similar.

Topic's author

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.11.2021 02:57AM

-->

@Ramshutu

No is saying it does

https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

The Biden administration has identified 5 factors to control by addressing sources of GHG emission:

Transportation 29%

Energy 25%

Industry 23%

Commercial & Residential 13%

Agriculture 10%

These five are all anthropogenic. Where's the effort to reduce GHG emission by natural wetlands? By vulcanism?

No one is saying it won’t.

The above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.

No one is saying it is

Again, the above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.

Also, the Green New Deal: https://www.gp.org/gnd_full. "The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just."

No one is saying it doesn’t.

Repeat: https://www.gp.org/gnd_full. https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

No one is saying there is

"Climate policy includes policies... so that the climate does not change as much or as quickly). https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

Note the singular reference to a climate.

No one is really saying it does

"The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030." https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

There is no credible citation referring us to earthclimate.org saying it, so, clearly, the GND effort is saying it does, not the Earth, herself.

Why does this make it arrogant.

Because the above two sources, Biden policy, and the GND, are saying. carbon credits will clean the clouds of GHGs.

No they aren’t.

"fossil fuel's only origin is living matter now dead. Just because the process does not complete and end at the flip of a switch does not mean that fossil fuels are not renewable, and continue to convert from living-to-dead matter, and convert from dead matter to fossil fuel. Yes, the process takes millions of years, but maybe less. We simply do not know, but that the process occurs is well documented. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles

Why does that make it arrogant?

Because the GND, and Biden admin policy, rejects all the above.

Topic's author

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.11.2021 03:01AM

-->

@FLRW

Fossil fuels are not really fossil fuels and are not renewable. Oil and natural gas do not come from fossilized dinosaurs!

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles

not just dinosaurs, but ALL living matter that dies. I think so far, that includes all life, not just dinosaurs. Otherwise. let's see your citation as evidence, and not just your GND-jaded opinion. I've given mine.

Topic's author

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.11.2021 03:07AM

-->

@Bones

what would you say

I would say first, all that I repeated to Ramshutu in my #6. Then I would say: You want to destroy the cattle industry when you know, but will not admit, that natural and cultivated wetlands [like for rice, for example] emit more methane into the atmosphere than do cow farts, so eat your rice, but leave my steak alone!

https://theconversation.com/half-of-global-methane-emissions-come-from-aquatic-ecosystems-much-of-this-is-human-made-156960

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-methane/cows-and-rice-paddies-boost-methane-emissions-study-idUSKBN14100L

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

11.11.2021 02:32PM

The Biden administration has identified 5 factors to control by addressing sources of GHG emission:

This does not conflict with:

climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect

The above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.

Does not conflict with

The climate was changing long before the advent of man on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

And does not suggest

that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

Repeat: https://www.gp.org/gnd_full. https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/

Doesn’t conflict with the statement:

climate changes, period, with or without man.

"Climate policy includes policies... so that the climate does not change as much or as quickly). https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/
Note the singular reference to a climate.

this does not suggest

one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

"The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030." https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
There is no credible citation referring us to earthclimate.org saying it, so, clearly, the GND effort is saying it does, not the Earth, herself.

Does not counter the statement:

the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

Because the above two sources, Biden policy, and the GND, are saying. carbon credits will clean the clouds of GHGs.

No they don’t. Reduce perhaps.

And certainly the fact that

Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

Does not appear make the concept of reducing anything “arrogant”.

"fossil fuel's only origin is living matter now dead. Just because the process does not complete and end at the flip of a switch does not mean that fossil fuels are not renewable, and continue to convert from living-to-dead matter, and convert from dead matter to fossil fuel. Yes, the process takes millions of years, but maybe less. We simply do not know, but that the process occurs is well documented. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles

Firstly, don’t use quotation marks for stuff that isn’t in the original

Secondly: if you’re claiming this source is credible and valid, awesome. It says “When we cut down forests, make more factories, and drive more cars that burn fossil fuels, the way that carbon and nitrogen move around the Earth changes. These changes add more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and this causes climate change.”

Of course, you could say everything it says that agrees with you is correct, everything that disagrees with you is false: but that’s just cherry picking.

Finally, no: fossil fuels are not renewable in any meaningful sense of the word. Obviously the processes at work still mostly apply, and a non zero amount of oil is formed each year: coal is primarily formed from the Carboniferous era - where trees were not really broken down by bacteria, and the oil we have is predominantly from the

The overwhelming majority of the oil we extract is from the Mesozoic era (66mya+) - formed in the overly warm tropical climate of the earth.

We can do some simple maths.

(How much oil has been consumed + how much oil could remain * conservative multiplication factor ) / how much time the earth has been producing that oil = barrels per year.

(

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Has-The-World-Really-Consumed.html

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1298

*200) /

(The 200 is assuming the amount of oil we think is in the ground is actually 200 times lower than it actually is)

https://www.smarttouchenergy.com/resources/how-oil-is-made

Let’s use the lower estimate of 252m

(1.1 trillion + 4.5 trillion * 200) / 252m)

Which is, if you’re following, 3.6m barrels per year of oil formed.

To put that in perspective - with those massively conservative numbers - that works out to about 42minutes and 12 seconds of the worlds current oil consumption: or 0.01% of the worlds annual consumption.

If it were a gas tank that was 70litres (a big one) - 0.01% works out as 0.007 litres - 7ml. Or 1.5 teaspoons of a gas tank.

So no; unless you destroy the entire worlds population with the exception of Armenia (just under 3.6m bbl per year) - one cannot consider fossil fuels as renewable in any meaningful sense.

Topic's author

#10

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.11.2021 03:16PM

-->

@Ramshutu

since the climate does not change exclusively die to anthropogenic effect, where are there no non-anthropogenic effects calculated into the the GND, or /the Biden admin plan? As we have been given dominion over the Earth, and we have according to Genesis, we have the means, by observation and learning, to put into effect things we learn. to improve natural causes of GHGs and other climate issues. That these plans do not is clear indication of an agenda, and not a true effort to improve0 our planet. It's just another blame-game to demonstration our victimization; a primary progressive tenet.

You claim the GND is not abut a singular, ideal climate. In temperature range, alone, it sure does. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ The following several points you make do support a singular, ideal climate just doe to the alarm over temperature.

The GND is completely structured around an established deadline beyond that is, itself, anthropogenic, but is no natural deadline: 2030 as a milestone; 2050 as a secondary milestone. https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

The arrogance of establishing carbon credits is thinking that economic sacrifice, a purely anthropogenic exercise, will do anything to rid the clouds [euphemistic for the atmosphere] of GHGs, since natural contribution of GHGs occurs unabated, even by the efforts of the Biden admin policy, or the GND.

When did I ever say there are no anthropogenic causes to GHGs, or other environmental effects. Haven't I admitted by my sources that anthropogenic activity does contribute to climate change? But I've also demonstrated that non-anthropogenic, natural effects cause climate change, and my point has always been that man can address some of these causes and reduce them, for both man and the Earth's benefit, but neither the Biden admin, or GND address these issues. Why not? An agenda, again? See, I do acknowledge there are things we could do to improve climate against natural causes,. so I am not "cherrypicking" as your accuse.

Your oil consumption/natural production [replenishment] exercise is all for naught, because no one knows:

1. The quantity of what is available still in the earth, certainly at least partially due to ignorance of the quantity we don't know about..

2. The actual rate/year, or whatever timeline you want to use, of natural production replenishment.

3. The pitiful increase of green energy sources to replace fossil fuel use, and why we cannot increase the rate of production of green energy sources sufficient to meet the 2030 and 2050 arbitrary deadlines. In simple words, AlGore, the climate change guru, still has not invented AlGore Gooey Juice to replace petroleum-based lubricants, let alone fuel. Why not?

You see, what you're ignoring is that I am actually in the camp that wants to increase our green energy production, but most of the contributors to that suggestion who can make a difference are not doing so, yet they continue to press the deadline. An agenda? Are they really after usable green energy, or is the mantra of the 60s, that we humans have overpopulated the Earth really after our extinction? An agenda. The question stands, and no one will render an honest opinion. I have, and others have to, but we're ignored. The home I occupy has a 39-solar panel array on its roof. Surprised? Yes, I do support green energy. Seems the extinction line is entirely forming over there on the left. Politically, alone, that is suicide. Be welcome in the line. meanwhile, I will live my life since it is a gift not to be wasted over stupid claims that I have limited time. It is limited, but by my mortality, only, and that is not even an end game, so, why wring my hands that we are doomed?

#11

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

11.11.2021 05:02PM

-->

@949havoc

since the climate does not change exclusively die to anthropogenic effect, where are there no non-anthropogenic effects calculated into the the GND, or /the Biden admin plan?

The GND is not a scientific accounting of contributions - it is merely policy based on the premise a bulk of the new carbon in the atmosphere that is warming the globe comes from humans - which is true.

It doesn’t state that humans are the only cause - as you appear to claim - only that it’s the major contributors, and one we can do something about

As we have been given dominion over the Earth, and we have according to Genesis, we have the means, by observation and learning, to put into effect things we learn. to improve natural causes of GHGs and other climate issues. That these plans do not is clear indication of an agenda, and not a true effort to improve0 our planet. It's just another blame-game to demonstration our victimization; a primary progressive tenet.

Actually this is a matter primarily of practicality. It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal

- for example - than it is to stop volcanos from erupting. Importantly, the environmental consequences would be much easier predict.

You claim the GND is not abut a singular, ideal climate. In temperature range, alone, it sure does. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ The following several points you make do support a singular, ideal climate just doe to the alarm over temperature.

Saying that it’s going to be bad for all the various earth climates (polar, temperate, tropical, etc) if temperatures increase is not saying or implying that there is a singular ideal climate. This claim is ridiculous.

The GND is completely structured around an established deadline beyond that is, itself, anthropogenic, but is no natural deadline: 2030 as a milestone; 2050 as a secondary milestone. https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

And? You said “the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.”

I agree, earth doesn’t care - the deadlines are for us; or specifically to limit the range of warming.

The arrogance of establishing carbon credits is thinking that economic sacrifice, a purely anthropogenic exercise, will do anything to rid the clouds [euphemistic for the atmosphere] of GHGs, since natural contribution of GHGs occurs unabated, even by the efforts of the Biden admin policy, or the GND.

But anthropogenic contributions are some of the biggest, and the only ones we can really mitigate. You know can’t just dump billions of additional tons into the atmosphere and not expect it to heat up, right?

It’s not that people don’t understand that volcanoes give off co2, I mean that’s just a dumb claim.

When did I ever say there are no anthropogenic causes to GHGs, or other environmental effects. Haven't I admitted by my sources that anthropogenic activity does contribute to climate change? But I've also demonstrateS that non-anthropogenic, natural effects cause climate change, and my point has always been that man can address some of these causes and reduce them, for both man and the Earth's benefit, but neither the Biden admin, or GND address these issues. Why not? An agenda, again? See, I do acknowledge there are things we could do to improve climate against natural causes,. so I am not "cherrypicking" as your accuse.

Why not? Because it’s easier to make cars have a better gas mileage than stopping volcanoes from errupting.

Your oil consumption/natural production [replenishment] exercise is all for naught, because no one knows:
1. The quantity of what is available still in the earth, certainly at least partially due to ignorance of the quantity we don't know about..

There are 1.5tn proven reserves, 3bn in estimated unproven reserves: and I have assumed in my calculations that there is 200 times more oil than we have estimated. I can increase this to 6000x times and the oil per year is equivalent to one day of production.

2. The actual rate/year, or whatever timeline you want to use, of natural production replenishment.

We’ll no, that’s what the calculation determines. Based on estimates of total amount of oil / time it was formed..

3. The pitiful increase of green energy sources to replace fossil fuel use, and why we cannot increase the rate of production of green energy sources sufficient to meet the 2030 and 2050 arbitrary deadlines. In simple words, AlGore, the climate change guru, still has not invented AlGore Gooey Juice to replace petroleum-based lubricants, let alone fuel. Why not?

This is absolutely irrelevant to the calculation that shows fossil fuels clearly are not renewable.

You see, what you're ignoring is that I am actually in the camp that wants to increase our green energy production, but most of the contributors to that suggestion who can make a difference are not doing so, yet they continue to press the deadline. An agenda? Are they really after usable green energy, or is the mantra of the 60s, that we humans have overpopulated the Earth really after our extinction? An agenda. The question stands, and no one will render an honest opinion. I have, and others have to, but we're ignored. The home I occupy has a 39-solar panel array on its roof. Surprised? Yes, I do support green energy. Seems the extinction line is entirely forming over there on the left. Politically, alone, that is suicide. Be welcome in the line. meanwhile, I will live my life since it is a gift not to be wasted over stupid claims that I have limited time. It is limited, but by my mortality, only, and that is not even an end game, so, why wring my hands that we are doomed?

Because a) the carbon tipping is over the edge is coming from humans and b.) again, it’s easier to insulate your loft than it is to stop volcanoes exploding…

#12

ILikePie5

Debates: 2

Posts: 12,833

ILikePie5

11.11.2021 05:42PM

-->

@949havoc

We’re all gonna be dead in 10 years anyways. Use all the carbon you want

Topic's author

#13

949havoc

Debates: 7

Posts: 816

949havoc

11.11.2021 09:03PM

-->

@Ramshutu

It doesn’t state that humans are the only cause - as you appear to claim

If you properly read my comments, I do not claim that anthropogenic causes of climate change are the only causes, but both GND and the Biden admin only address anthropogenic causes, as if they are the only causes of climate change. Look to them, not5 me. I acknowledge there are natural causes, too, and should be addressed as best we can. It's called, as I mentioned, having dominion of the Earth, which we have. Can't that, bat least, be agreed?

It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal

Really? Then why was solar power tech only developed for wide-spread use in the 20th century, and only late in that century? Coal tech has been around for multiple centuries because... it's easier? Because... it's not much more technical than the knowledge that it burns?

is not saying or implying that there is a singular ideal climate.

Well, we don't say climates change, do we? And who says that an increase of 1.5 to 2 degrees C is catastrophic for all climates, or that a decrease of that range is as well. GND doesn't happen to specify, does it? No one bothers to say so. Are we supposed to assume they don't mean. that? This is supposed to be science, which is supposed to address all variables, isn't it? Is it only because I'm the only one thinking these issues through? I don't think so, but I've never heard a Prog admit it.

I agree, earth doesn’t care - the deadlines are for us; or specifically to limit the range of warming.

But your thinking, and the GND thinking, completely ignores the adaptability factor that was so prevalent in Darwin. Have we defrocked St. Darwin in our rush to catastrophe that does not appear to be eminent according to global warming predictions?

Because it’s easier to make cars have a better gas mileage than stopping volcanoes from errupting.

Sure, but isn't it also easier to con0struct aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to limit flooding further downstream, and offer more water to the southwest, than mere react with reconstruction after flooding. Cheaper, too. But we don't do it. Why not? Isn't it also easier to desalinate seawater for drinking that fret about lack of fresh water? But we don't do it very much, do we? Why not? It's easier to claim that natural and cultivated wetlands emit more methane into the atmosphere than cows, and push rice use while claiming the beef industry is a danger to our environment. I smell an agenda.

There are 1.5tn proven reserves,

That says nothing for why development of more and better green energy solutions is so slow in implementation to actually prove there are better, safer, and more efficient energy resources than fossil fuels. Until that lack ids justifie4d and ameliortated, green energy claims of efficient fall on deaf ears.

#14

n8nrgmi

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

n8nrgmi

11.11.2021 09:15PM

There's nothing arrogant in trying to lessen the damage we're objectively doing. All these arguments around that just reflect a lack of critical thinking on behalf of the ones arguing them.

#15

Ramshutu

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

Ramshutu

11.11.2021 09:26PM

-->

@949havoc

If you properly read my comments, I do not claim that anthropogenic causes of climate change are the only causes, but both GND and the Biden admin only address anthropogenic causes, as if they are the only causes of climate change. Look to them, not5 me. I acknowledge there are natural causes, too, and should be addressed as best we can. It's called, as I mentioned, having dominion of the Earth, which we have. Can't that, bat least, be agreed?

You said the policy is:

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect.

But the policy doesn’t claim that it is. Everyone accepts that humans aren’t the only source of co2, but the co2 we are producing is what is primarily shifting the planets climate. The policy address human influence because that’s what we can actually address - no other reason.

It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal
Really? Then why was solar power tech only developed for wide-spread use in the 20th century, and only late in that century? Coal tech has been around for multiple centuries because... it's easier? Because... it's not much more technical than the knowledge that it burns?

My full quote is “It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal - for example - than it is to stop volcanos from erupting.

Please don’t quote me out of context.

is not saying or implying that there is a singular ideal climate.
Well, we don't say climates change, do we? And who says that an increase of 1.5 to 2 degrees C is catastrophic for all climates, or that a decrease of that range is as well. GND doesn't happen to specify, does it? No one bothers to say so. Are we supposed to assume they don't mean. that? This is supposed to be science, which is supposed to address all variables, isn't it? Is it only because I'm the only one thinking these issues through? I don't think so, but I've never heard a Prog admit it.

Acknowledging that increases in temperature will damage the planet and ecosystems arounds the world - which is true - is not even close to saying there is one singular climate. We clearly have different regional climates and that “earths climate” in the sense we use it simply means the aggregate of the various regional climates. This is just a deliberately obtuse strawman; using the vagaries of language to presume people are talking about something they are not.

I agree, earth doesn’t care - the deadlines are for us; or specifically to limit the range of warming.
But your thinking, and the GND thinking, completely ignores the adaptability factor that was so prevalent in Darwin. Have we defrocked St. Darwin in our rush to catastrophe that does not appear to be eminent according to global warming predictions?

Thinking that causing a major climate shift that imperils our current ecosystem is going to be bad on all the people who depend on it, does not ignore that life in various forms will eventually be able to adapt. Come on; this is absurd on its face.

Because it’s easier to make cars have a better gas mileage than stopping volcanoes from errupting.
Sure, but isn't it also easier to con0struct aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to limit flooding further downstream, and offer more water to the southwest, than mere react with reconstruction after flooding. Cheaper, too. But we don't do it. Why not? Isn't it also easier to desalinate seawater for drinking that fret about lack of fresh water? But we don't do it very much, do we? Why not? It's easier to claim that natural and cultivated wetlands emit more methane into the atmosphere than cows, and push rice use while claiming the beef industry is a danger to our environment. I smell an agenda.

You asked why, specifically, various green policy doesn’t address natural sources of green house gases: and the answer is because there is literally we do not have the technical or engineering ability to stop most natural sources - such as volcanos or eliminating emissions from natural wetlands. Pretending massive scale ecological engineering that is currently far outside our abilities, and would be prohibitively expensive compared to alternatives are comparable to two well tested engineering alternative solutions is just stupid.

There are 1.5tn proven reserves,
That says nothing for why development of more and better green energy solutions is so slow in implementation to actually prove there are better, safer, and more efficient energy resources than fossil fuels. Until that lack ids justifie4d and ameliortated, green energy claims of efficient fall on deaf ears.

The reason it says nothing for why the development of green solutions is so slow - is because this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making, which is on a completely different subject that was utterly unrelated to the point you’ve raised. what I am talking about is that oil cannot possibly considered renewable, because even if we grossly overestimate the oil we have, and underestimate how long it took to form it forms at a fraction of the necessary speed required to be considered so.

A point, I may add: you appear to be trying to avoid with this incredibly obtuse subject change .

#16

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

oromagi

11.12.2021 02:10AM

“One constant among the elements of 1914—as of any era—was the disposition of everyone on all sides not to prepare for the harder alternative, not to act upon what they suspected to be true.”

― Barbara W. Tuchman, The Guns of August

#17

zedvictor4