The benefits of added CO2 have been taken into account. If you read anything about the actual science and all of the models without just trying to find something to debunk it you will see it addressed multiple times. It has been addressed repeatedly. The added CO2 is not necessarily the biggest problem. The rate of change and the resulting impact on the environment in a short time and without allowing for biological evolution is the bigger problem. He literally admitted that he doesn't understand the details. He was being a troll making a political argument against people that he doesn't like. People get tired of these points that he's making because they have been addressed, and they are being asked in a public "gotcha" style. They are tired of answering the same old questions from every person who doesn't take the time or care to understand, because the way it is being done is a harmful distraction . These arguments are just pushing an agenda and it is actually hurting the whole world. Our children will now have less successful lives (on average) and will live in a world filled with greater upheaval and violence (due to resource scarcity) unless we're able to make unimaginable technological advances. This, as a result of arguments like these being used by the elite to convince us rubes to continue supporting their profit centers rather than forcing meaningful change.
Well, exactly. That's why we have lots of people working on it, rather than taking seriously one old dude who isn't working on it but needs attention. You don't find out the truth from people like him. You find out what his uniformed opinions are. There's dozens of these "Famous Very Old Scientist Who Now Thinks He's An Expert On Everything". They are always full of shit. barfo
Thats because our generation was born dumb. And as we got older, we got dumber. So dumb, that when we retired, and have no financial interest in the topic. We are no longer aloud to ask questions. And when we do ask questions, we are accused of trying to be experts. Lucky kids today, they are born knowing everything.
I don't think this is about old or young. I think this is about corporations and the elite sewing disinformation to keep their profits and power. Dyson waded into it and didn't like the answers he got (which while probably wasn't delivered in a welcoming manner, that was likely because the poor people in these fields have been ignored or on the defensive constantly for decades).
True. With all the advantages in brainpower they have, it's hard to understand why they whine so much. I don't think it's a problem that he asks questions. But he knows enough to know where to find the answers if he really wants to. So the fact that he's 'just asking questions' means he doesn't really want the answers, he wants to pontificate. I do think it's an old person problem, in the sense that young famous scientists are busy doing the science that makes them famous, and no one listens to what a non-famous scientist, young or old, has to say about a topic that he's not expert in. It's only the old famous ones that are used to people hanging on their every word, but who are no longer relevant in their own field, who get this idea that they can now make contributions in areas they don't really know. Usually it's delusion, but with this guy I think he knows exactly what he's up to. barfo
Suing fossil fuel companies because of a heat wave. Perhaps fossil fuel companies should stop delivering gasoline to Multnomah County.
They've been predicting that the CO2 is going to cause feedback loops that cause heating to spin out of control. None of their models or predictions have panned out this far, yet they are trying to squash food and energy production, and ban various gas powered items. Squashing food and energy will certainly have negative impacts on us all. The problems species face have to do with pollution, over-hunting and habitat loss. Yet all you hear about in the news is everything being blamed on "climate change". The weather changes day to day by several degrees but it's that miniscule average difference that's killing them off. Meanwhile, we see from history how life has flourished more when the planet is warmer. Climate change is something that should be studied, but take out the propaganda.
Buying Big Oil's lies hook, line and sinker.........Gee, those guys wouldn't have ulterior motives, would they??? Would they??
What's the sense in going after the companies that are getting us a resource that is necessary for civilization to function? If they stopped doing business most of us would be dead in a few months.
Which is why I've advocated for the Environmental Damage Tax to be paired with a strict Progressive Dividend as the solution (you've probably heard of similar called the Carbon Tax and Dividend, which would only take Carbon into consideration. I would include all environmentally damaging processes). It would make the resources cost what they should (which makes nuclear and renewables more cost effective than burning fossil fuels in most cases), doesn't hurt anybody, and will encourage a steady increase in environmentally friendly practices.
I think the problem there is classifying CO2 as a pollutant. There are pollutants that come from burning various fuels that should and have been cleaned up. But classifying natural gases as pollutants gets us to the place of wanting to ban cows and fossil fuels in general. The CO2 we emit is food for plants and seems to be contributing to a greening effect. The CO2 and any warmth it brings may be considered a nutrient to the planet. It's also unclear how much the CO2 is actually contributing to the warming trend. Something other than humans burning fossil fuels caused these cycles. .
Look at those timelines. None of those cycles happened over as short a time as we're seeing now. Those happened over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. And let's be clear. The world will be fine. It'll correct itself. The problem will be the incredible suffering that will happen because of our actions. This is just chemistry. We know how excess pollution effects global average temperatures. We know how dangelerous many other processes are..There is no mystery any longer other than where the damage will occur and how much suffering will happen, and where. I'm not suggesting banning anything that is useful. Only taxing chemicals and processes based on how damaging they are to the environment and returning that money to the people who will be most impacted by said damage.
But the current average temperature doesn't seem so dramatic when viewed historically. It's part of a repeating cycle. If we zoom out even further, we're well below average. Even if humans disappeared, we're still going to see big flucuations in climate.
I do think caution is warrented, and we should attempt to transition away from fossil fuels. It's just that it's not at all clear that the dire predictions have merit, and we know that taking extreme measures WILL have dire measures.
No, if humans disappear, we won't see big fluctuations in climate. We won't see anything, because we'll all be dead. Yes, on a very long timescale, the earth has been, and presumably will be again, either too hot or too cold to support human life. Causing those conditions to happen sooner is not really a great idea. barfo
