On October 12, 2019 at 18:03, Anthony said...
almost there. (continue after next quote)
You see you keep on trying to explain why the IPCC is a broken clock. IMHO it does not matter if it is or is not. If the clock is broken and the time is correct then the time is correct. If the clock is broken and the time is wrong then we are better off determining what the time is.
I am not being dismissive but saying "sceptic science telling me what the time really is." does not say much, it just like politics, saying Xs methodology might be flawed and so his conclusion could be wrong, is useless.
so what is the solution?
let me not go too far you said "has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger" right? you said in this post "The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor"
If they are there to help the poor then it does not make sense that they would mess up the data to push global warming and hurt the poor.
The issue it is not just my friends home, he was one of the tens of thousands that were affected. and if warming means more ice melting it means sooner or later there will be even more houses affected. And it is not just flooding but look at what is happening on Mont blanc.
agree, but aren't you the one against adapting to change?
Moving away from a flooded place is adapting, paying to help people move is adapting, but isn't changing stuff so that the disasters don't happen also adapting? You are the one that is not willing to adapt to the reality that electricity from consumables is more expensive and an issue and so eliminating them (if possible) makes both economic and environmental sense.
well first let's reduce the negative impact we are having, then we can see how much is left. Maybe none will be left, if there is a bit more some small projects might be enough (such as planting more trees, they don't care if it is coming from a coal plant or a volcano). Maybe we need to have a better plan for an other green house gas...
can we agree it is warmer now then a few years ago?
can we agree it appears it will continue getting warmer?
can we agree this is not because the sun has gotten brighter, the earths orbit has drastically changed, the earths spin/axis has not changed?
Having the rare privilege of being supplied "dirt cheap" hydro power is clouding one's judgement over consumables derived energy. For the vast majority it is far from being more expensive, as the graphs, reports and examples I've previously supplied clearly demonstrate.
Previously supplied economic and engineering reports also clearly demonstrate that the UN's plans for tackling climate change will not help the world's poor, but actually keep them in a state of perpetual poverty. My argument is thus perfectly valid. The IPCC are using the embellished threat of climate change in an effort to stimulate an exchange of wealth which will not only not help those they are using as the excuse for that said exchange, but will exacerbate the problems already being faced by those expected to make the donations.
By your definition, the genocidal ideas of Malthusians could also be seen as adaption, but building flood defences is likely the more ethical, not to mention cheaper, option. Forgive me, but I find being lectured by someone paying five times less per unit of electricity than me (who appears to believe I should be doing more so that he doesn’t have to worry about local flooding and it’s consequences) a tad irksome. I’m perfectly willing to adapt, but the spending of trillions to achieve absolutely nothing is not adaptation, it's just plain madness.
And finally, why are you worrying the causes of the warming, when right at the outset you dismiss the science as being irrelevant?
Last edited by djy on October 13, 2019 14:54.
