Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?

[BrianG]

Question- is there any evidence whatsoever that restricting carbon dioxide emissions will hurt the economy? ...

 

The IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, Table SMP.4 on page 12 predictions reduction in GDP growth rates from .06 to .1 percent. If current GDP is $60,000,000,000,000 (World GDP Google - public data) and the growth rate is 2.01% (World GDP Growth Rate Google - public data) or $1,206,000,000,000 then at an average loss of .08% climate change mitigation will cost $9,648.000,000.

[modest]

Does it matter that we burn fossil fuel to light our way, warm our homes, cook our food, work, move us and our goods and communicate, rather than to change the climate?

 

Indeed, it does matter—that is why I am encouraging you to examine the risk between the two options, mitigation and instigation. There is, perhaps, a risk that mitigation will negatively impact the economy, and there is, perhaps, a risk that instigation will negatively impact the environment on which our species depends. Either option you choose will have an associated risk which your "without proof... waiting is an excellent strategy" argument blissfully ignores.

 

~modest

[Eclipse Now]

There are multiple benefits for doing something about obtaining clean, renewable energy, and heaps of risk factors associated with staying addicted to fossil fuels.

 

Pollution, increased cancer rates and lung disease, environmental degradation through massive hilltop razing, energy insecurity, a fragile American economy losing $600 billion a year to oil imports —*money which could go to retrofitting GM (Government Motors) into an all electric car system and virtually solve unemployment in America through increased recycling of this money through your system — and of course peak oil is knocking at the door. (Other thread still awaits an answer on Discovery rates Brian).

 

Why on earth would America wait to transition into a cleaner, safer, more economically secure nation? This isn't just about the 'theory' of global warming if you are a sceptic on that matter, this is about your national security and national health and national energy independence and jobs!

[Erasmus00]

The IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, Table SMP.4 on page 12 predictions reduction in GDP growth rates from .06 to .1 percent.

 

So we trust the IPCC report its economic predictions BUT not on the science? Why? Doubt everything except that which agrees with your preconceived notions.

 

Capping carbon, and encouraging less emission will create a market for new products, the companies that create these products will reap a fortune. Why not invest in solving the climate crisis the old fashioned way- innovation. Don't want to pay for extra emissions, innovate!

 

Consider something simple- I recently replaced a number of appliances with high efficiency ones (which have been available for years, I'm feeling greening myself up I guess). I paid a substantial upfront cost, however, I'm using substantially less power per month, and I figure in 5 years, it will have paid for itself. In 6, I've made a profit on them. Reducing my carbon imprint has saved me money.

 

Further, using less fossil fuels means using less oil, means giving less money to nations with terrible human rights records and who fund terror. How can this be a bad thing?

[Eclipse Now]

Further, using less fossil fuels means using less oil, means giving less money to nations with terrible human rights records and who fund terror. How can this be a bad thing?

 

Oh man, how could I have left that off the list?

 

Using fossil fuels results in:-

• pollution
  
• increased throat and lung cancer
  
• other lung disease
  
• destroyed local environments
  
• a fragile American economy
  
• loss of $6 trillion a decade to oil imports (and going up!)
  
• America funding extremists that don't like America very much
  
• energy insecurity as the world approaches peak fossil fuels
  
• incredible national food security risks with the imminent onset of peak oil and gas, and all that means for industrial agriculture
  

 

What else have I missed?

[BrianG]

So we trust the IPCC report its economic predictions BUT not on the science? Why? Doubt everything except that which agrees with your preconceived notions...

 

I don't trust the IPCC report, you asked a question, I gave you their answer.

[BrianG]

Indeed, it does matter—that is why I am encouraging you to examine the risk between the two options, mitigation and instigation. There is, perhaps, a risk that mitigation will negatively impact the economy, and there is, perhaps, a risk that instigation will negatively impact the environment on which our species depends. Either option you choose will have an associated risk which your "without proof... waiting is an excellent strategy" argument blissfully ignores.

 

~modest

 

So, the idea that climate is naturally variable and man's activity may be insignificant is unacceptable skepticism. We either instigate or mitigate.

[Eclipse Now]

So, the idea that climate is naturally variable and man's activity may be insignificant is unacceptable skepticism.

This has been more than adequately spelt out to you in terms of the sheer physics and maths.

 

According to the world's climate community and EVERY reputable scientific organisation on the planet, YES!

 

We either instigate or mitigate.

Yes we've caused the climate change, and yes we must adapt to the damage we've done, and yes we need to mitigate or prevent any further damage by getting off the fossil fuels before they totally cook the planet, and yes there are many other reasons to leave fossil fuels behind us.

 

But oh no! Beat your chest and declare, "What if it's all a hoax and we go ahead and make a far better world! What on earth will we do then?!"

 

Ummm :phones: enjoy a better world? :cheer:

[BrianG]

This has been more than adequately spelt out to you in terms of the sheer physics and maths.

 

According to the world's climate community and EVERY reputable scientific organisation on the planet, YES!

...

 

Thank you for helping me get my head straight on climate change mitigation.

[Eclipse Now]

Hey, my pleasure. :phones:

[stereologist]

Reason wrote this:

WMD didn't exist, but the oil was always there and we definitely knew that.

That you asked me what my point was in saying WMDs did exist.

[stereologist]

Reason wrote:

I could go on and on about this stuff, stereo, but this is just not the thread for it. I'd just assume we try and stay on topic here.

You seem to want your cake and eat it too. You want to claim the value of unknown reserves and also claim that these reserves are not significant. You also claim to be searching for the truth. I'm curious as to why you are inconsistent in your claims.

[stereologist]

There are multiple benefits for doing something about obtaining clean, renewable energy, and heaps of risk factors associated with staying addicted to fossil fuels.

 

The so-called clean, renewable energy sources are not as clean and sweet as you present. One example is the destruction of migrating birds and local bat populations by wind turbines.

[stereologist]

Solar cell manufacturing involves the use of extremely poisonous materials such as phosgene and arsine gases. Toxic metals such as arsenic and cadmium are involved. The large use of wind turbines goes beyond being an eye sore cluttering up the landscape. It adversely affects wildlife. Large scale solar projects in desert areas negatively impact endangered animals such as the desert tortoise. Tidal projects have a negative impact on marine mammals. Hydroelectric projects have decimated migrating caribou, and decimated fish populations.

 

http://www.pv.bnl.gov/art_170.pdf

[Eclipse Now]

I've read various studies about bats & Birds & wind turbines, and it's not as bad as many other fossil fuel effects on wildlife. (Mining of coal and contamination of local wetlands, etc).

 

As for solar cells, what can I say? Life is dangerous, technology is dangerous, hammers and saws and cars are dangerous. It's how we use them. If the technology involves nasties, well, D'uh! Manufacture them cleanly and keep those nasties out of the ecosystem! Do we really have to spell that out?

 

However, no-one has demonstrated an economical way of keeping Co2 out of the atmospheric system when burning coal etc. So called "carbon sequestration" is going to make coal just too expensive.

 

I'm not convinced it will ever become a reality. Surely nuclear power will be cheaper, let alone some of the wind and wave and geothermal systems coming out.

 

D'oh! I replied to Monkeydue but it seems Monkeydue is a SPAM auto-bot just repeating previous lines from the forum to appear on-topic and a possible, credible 'member'.