- Aug 26, 2016
See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
This is a complex issue, not reducible to a simplistic binary. The environment is far too important to be left to the Environmentalists.I'd rather go with the climate change believers and be wrong, than go with the climate change deniers and be wrong.
Well in that case prophecy has more credibility. People like Nostradamus kept his stuff vague enough so that it could be "interpreted". These scientific doomsday dates that come and go is just silly.Prophecy = religious mumbo jumbo
Prediction (in this context) = scientifically educated guess
If you don't know the difference between those, then maybe you shouldn't be in this thread?
This and it distracts from real environmental issues that we can actually deal with like pollution, erosion, deforestation....This is a complex issue, not reducible to a simplistic binary. The environment is far too important to be left to the Environmentalists.
My own view is that it seems undeniable that the climate is changing. As it has many, many times before, btw.
But I'm unconvinced that this change is anthropogenic. As is the case in 100% of all previous climate shifts, the odds are rather high that this current one, too, is natural. I strongly suspect that there's pretty much buggerall we as a species can do about it, other than adapt or die.
And I have great confidence in our ability to adapt appropriately.
Moreover, thinking that there's anything we can do to prevent or mitigate climate change is narcissism on stilts, in my estimation, which I readily acknowledge seems to be very much a minority view.
Oh by the way, I think you seriously underestimate just how grim and unbearable the repression and hardship will be should the Climatista policies be implemented.
The purpose of these claims is to provide a living for the so called researchers doing the 'research'.Professor Richard Lindzen
(Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Yes, it's a massive opportunity!This is flawed because there is also a huge economic (and humanitarian) consequence of adopting the policies that believers propose.
Transitioning to this low-carbon, sustainable growth path could deliver a direct economic gain of US$26 trillion through to 2030 compared to business-as-usual.
A lot of what's necessary is simply creating more efficient cities. Less single-occupant vehicles used for commuting (preferably moving away from using private cars at all, as far as possible), more mass/rapid transit (electric) and active modes, higher density living, more walkable cities.A new model for sustainable economic growth, according to the report, can come through:
Clean energy systems. By continuing the transition already underway from fossil fuels to renewable energy, decentralizing and using digital technology, we can put in place more resilient, cleaner, cheaper systems and provide energy to more people around the globe.
Smarter urban development. The report calculates that through good urban planning and infrastructure investment, "More compact, connected, and coordinated cities are worth up to $17 trillion in economic savings by 2050 and will stimulate economic growth by improving access to jobs and housing."
Sustainable land use. More sustainable agriculture and forest protection can improve food security including by reducing food loss and waste, and deliver climate solutions.
Wise water management. New technology and better management can help allocate resources, improve sanitation and address the "water-energy-food nexus."
A circular industrial economy. We need to move away from a take - make - waste economy to one that reuses, repurposes and recycles. "Shifting to a circular industrial economy, combined with increasing efficiency and electrification," says the report, "could decouple economic growth from material use and drive decarbonisation of industrial activities."
Educated guesses in science are called theories. Theories have real data to substantiate them. This is all based on something nobody knows anything about and which nobody in the field is seeing. That's the definition of doom prophecies. The whole irony here is that if the policies are implemented it would be detrimental for the countries that would be most affected if any of the predictions came true. Perhaps it would be better to look at the oil cartels who really control the world. There's a saying that goes if America sneezes the world catches a cold. But if the oil companies sneeze the markets catch Ebola.Scientists know what predictions are... educated guesses.
They don't like having to make them... but as Dave says above... in this case they are forced to make predictions.
And this is the path to utopia? Looks like an unfolding nightmare to me. Can only get there with a) brainwashing and b) jackboots.A lot of what's necessary is simply creating more efficient cities. Less single-occupant vehicles used for commuting (preferably moving away from using private cars at all, as far as possible), more mass/rapid transit (electric) and active modes, higher density living, more walkable cities.
There needs to be agricultural reform, too. It's simply unsustainable. Artificial meat is looking promising, but it's a bit unclear how easily and fast that can be scaled to replace what we have currently.
Don't really see the issue? I'd gladly ditch my car if I had access to reliable and efficient mass transit.And this is the path to utopia? Looks like an unfolding nightmare to me. Can only get there with a) brainwashing and b) jackboots.