Climate Change Denial

[nwdiver]

so you're a climate scientist.
we only know what we're told, and agendas inspire all of it.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand basic energy conservation laws and radiative forcing. That's what's so insane about this rejection of INCREDIBLY basic physics. John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius weren't climate scientists... in their day no such thing existed but their discoveries are the foundation of modern climate science.

And no... you don't 'only know what you're told' that's the beauty of science. It's independently verifiable. CO2 is more transparent to incoming energy from the sun than outgoing energy from the Earth. Go get some CO2 and measure the wavelengths of light it's transparent or opaque to. It will be the same every time because physics. CO2 is 40% higher due to our pathetic addiction to fools fuel because math. CO2 being >40% higher means ~1,000TW of additional thermal energy 24/7/365 because physics. That's ~9M TWh/yr. For context all of humanity uses less than 200k TWh/yr. Or... the largest nuclear bomb ever released ~70TWh of energy. So every year the CO2 we've added adds the equivalent of 130,000 Tsar bombs or ~400M Little Boys worth of thermal energy. Amazing how ~1.5w/m^2 adds up over 510M km^2.

SCIENCE!

 

[JRP3]

so you're a climate scientist.
we only know what we're told, and agendas inspire all of it.

If you don't understand the science and basic physics that's your problem. I'd suggest you read up on the physics of the CO2 molecule in relation to light and heat. CH4 as well.

 

[David_Cary]

Let's go with the agenda argument because I think it is fair.
The primary agenda of all powerful people is to stay in power. Well - not all - but a large majority.
You can say that people in media want to keep their jobs and so need eyeballs or ears. That is totally true and is their agenda.
Now, look at an oil company. Or a state run by oil money (ie Texas and the US in general). Look at the wealth that is created. The agenda here is to preserve and increase that wealth.
Anyone with wealth in the US has money in oil. All media is owned by wealthy people. The agenda of the wealthy people is to perserve and increase the wealth. So the media are kind of split but certainly not in favor of the kind of measures needed to control warming. Talk is cheap and of course that is what they do because it helps with eyeballs. But their real power (of their bosses especially) comes from oil.
So the agenda argument from the media and wealthy and therefore politicians is strongly in favor of denying climate change.
At some point when facts become undeniable, the media (and wealthy owners) make more money by actually acknowledging climate change. This is the stage we are in now. The frustrating part is that the true power in the background still really does better by denying climate change and so the agenda is tarnished. And the money to the politicians flows in the direction of oil (and of course I really mean all carbon fuels). The Manchin example is just so freaking clear cut and yet how much of it do you see on the mainstream media?

 

[JRP3]

Let's go with the agenda argument because I think it is fair.

The problem is that it's a distraction from the actual issues and it's a tactic used by those who don't want to face the facts.

 

[Norbert]

The problem is that it's a distraction from the actual issues and it's a tactic used by those who don't want to face the facts.

Yes, also I think the challenges introduced by climate change are exceptional to all existing agendas. The attempt to assimilate a response to climate change into existing agendas (though easier for generally more science-friendly agendas) loses valueable time as then the attention and willingness to act, gets lost in the general political battle for who has the better agenda.

 

[advocate8]

Think about the gap between where humanity is now and where it was in 1922.

Ok... done. We are exactly as close to seriously addressing climate change as we were in 1922.

 

[qdeathstar]

Ok... done. We are exactly as close to seriously addressing climate change as we were in 1922.

A rather specific and dumb way to look at things.

 

[qdeathstar]

Whether this is true or not, it doesn’t address my points.

Because, see above.

 

[advocate8]

A rather specific and dumb way to look at things.

The basic fact is greenhouse gas emissions are orders of magnitude greater than in 1922, and are still increasing.
Maybe you want to elaborate on the technical solutions that are nearing practicality, and aren’t just moonbeam wishing.... then perhaps you could point to specific policy solutions that not only could have serious effects on climate change, but have even a small chance of gaining passage by Congress? For now, to keep the discussion simple, we can ignore the complete lack of International momentum toward global policy approaches that could have real effects. And we can ignore the Supreme Court removing the EPA’s ability to regulate key emissions.

 

[eevee-fan]

ERCOT CEO says he did not expect it to be as hot as it is

ERCOT Interim CEO Brad Jones says he is concerned about some of the state's older power generators keeping up with the record demand for power this summer.

www.khou.com

 

[DrGriz]

ERCOT CEO says he did not expect it to be as hot as it is

ERCOT Interim CEO Brad Jones says he is concerned about some of the state's older power generators keeping up with the record demand for power this summer.

www.khou.com

What can you say, really? At some point these deniers are no longer going to be able to pretend.

 

[qdeathstar]

.
Maybe you want to elaborate on the technical solutions that are nearing practicality, and aren’t just moonbeam wishing.... then perhaps you could point to specific policy solutions that not only could have serious effects on climate change,

Solar power and EVs. And there have been a lot of progress in ice emissions. Your a glass have empty type of guy; I get it. Take an ambium and roll out.

 

[eevee-fan]

Jalopnik: Tesla Asked Texas Drivers to Avoid Charging During Record Heat Wave.

Tesla Asked Texas Drivers to Avoid Charging During Record Heat Wave

The Texas power grid is a hot mess, so Tesla encouraged EV owners to help by charging at certain times.

jalopnik.com

103F is just a warm summer day in Las Vegas. No power rationing.

 

[advocate8]

Solar power and EVs. And there have been a lot of progress in ice emissions. Your a glass have empty type of guy; I get it. Take an ambium and roll out.

Thanks for shifting the focus away from facts and onto me, and for the diagnosis and prescription. Now, about those non-existent policy solutions and that non-existent drop in emissions since 1922, thanks to all these wonderful tech solutions you mention?

 

[lolachampcar]

A rather specific and dumb way to look at things.

Or a simple assessment of our prioritization of short term goals over long term needs........

 

[qdeathstar]

Or a simple assessment of our prioritization of short term goals over long term needs........

Judging technological progress through a very limited lense is useless. Any reasonable person knows climate change is an issue and there are many technological advancements in that area. No, the world isn’t singularly focused on that issue, but it doesn’t have to be. There are plenty of people who are.

 

[qdeathstar]

Thanks for shifting the focus away from facts and onto me, and for the diagnosis and prescription.

I do what I can.

Now, about those non-existent policy solutions and that non-existent drop in emissions since 1922, thanks to all these wonderful tech solutions you mention?

Technological progress has been made, we are in the implementation stage now. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to limit technical advancement to climate change technology/ but you do you. Maybe if all the environmentalists had of gotten behind nuclear power the emissions situation would have looked better. But for some reason they always seem to choose fear and negativity to get there point across.

 

[JRP3]

Nuclear is the slowest and most expensive to build. Not exactly the parameters needed to make a difference.

 

[advocate8]

I do what I can.




Technological progress has been made, we are in the implementation stage now. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to limit technical advancement to climate change technology/ but you do you. Maybe if all the environmentalists had of gotten behind nuclear power the emissions situation would have looked better. But for some reason they always seem to choose fear and negativity to get there point across.

Oh, I’ll def do me, and am fully able to do so without instructions to do so.
One thing doing me means is putting people who make things personal here on “ignore.” Have a good weekend.

 

[Norbert]

Judging technological progress through a very limited lense is useless. Any reasonable person knows climate change is an issue and there are many technological advancements in that area. No, the world isn’t singularly focused on that issue, but it doesn’t have to be. There are plenty of people who are.

Unfortunately, that excludes politicians as for example in the US Senate there are apparently only 49 vs 51 "reasonable person"s by this measure. Until that changes, I consider it a fact that increasing population will proportionally increase CO2, so I think in any case we need to solve the CO2 problem first. Solar technology is already crossing the line to greatness, yet what needs to improve is our willingness to use the right technology in a "reasonable" manner. And, by the way, "adapting" to climate change isn't enough, we need to *prevent* it.